Skip to main content

Full text of "Greater Toronto Area 3Rs analysis : service technical appendix - schedules, volume I [final - May 1994]"

See other formats


I - • w.- 



GREATER TORONTO AREA 
3Rs ANALYSIS 
SERVICE TECHNICAL 
APPENDIX - SCHEDULES 

VOLUME I 



FINAL - MAY 1994 

® Ontario 

Ministry of Environment and Energy 



Copyright PfC>vfsioris arid Restrictimis On Copying: 

This Ontario Ministry of the Environment work is protected by Crown copyright 
(unless otherwise indicated), which is held by the Queen's Printer for Ontario. It 
may be reproduced for non-conimercial purposes if credit is given and Crown 
copyright is acknowledged. 

It may not be reproduced, in all or in part, for any commercial purpose except 
under a licence from the Queen's Printer for Ontario, 

For information on reproducing Government of Ontario works, please contact 
ServiceOntario Publications at copvright(a),ontario.ca 



ISBN 0-7778-2032-3 (9v.set) 
ISBN 0-7778-2036-6 (this v.) 



GREATER TORONTO AREA 3Rs ANALYSIS 
SERVICE TECHNICAL APPENDIX - SCHEDULES 



Prepared by Resource Integration Systems Ltd. 

for 

Fiscal Planning and Infonnation Management Branch 

Ministry of Environment and Energy 



FINAL - MAY 1994 

© 

Ce document technique n'existe qu'en anglais. 
Pour obtenir des renseignements en frangais, 
veuiUez composer le 1-800-661-9294. . 

Copyright: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1994 

This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes 

with appropriate attribution. 



PIES 2749 



The report was prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy as part of a Ministry- 
funded project Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 
recommendation of their use. 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Schedule A 

Schedule B 

Schedule B-1 
Schedule B-2 
Schedule B-3 
Schedule 3-4 
Schedule B-5 
Schedule B-6 
Schedule B-7 
Schedule B-8 

Schedule C 

Schedule D 

Schedule E 

Schedule F 

Schedule G 

Schedule H 

Schedule HI 
Schedule H-2 
Schedule H-3 
Schedule H-4 
Schedule H-5 
Schedule H-6 
Schedule H-7 
Schedule H-8 
Schedule H-9 

Schedule I 

Schedule J 

Schedule K 

Schedule L 

Schedule M 

Schedule N 



List of Schedules 
Service Technical Appendix 

VOLUME 1 

Potential Waste Diversion Impacts of Secondary Enhancement 
Components 

Source Reduction and Other Waste Diversion Considerations 

Source Reduction 

Promotion and Education 

Leaf and Yard Waste Management 

Multi-Family Residence Recycling 

Mandatory Source Separation (MSS and Recycling Ordinances) 

Product Stewardship 

Collection System Design Decisions 

Future Waste Generation and Composition 

On-Site Composting 

Residential Direct Cost 

Expanded Blue Box 

Residential Wet/Dry System Information 

Mixed Waste Processing 

Markets 

Overview of Markets 

Markets for Fibres 

Maricets for Plastics 

Markets for Organics 

Markets for Metals 

Markets for Construction and Demolition Waste 

Maricets for Other Materials 

Market EXevelopment 

References 

Region of Durham Estimates 

Metro Toronto Estimates 

Region of York Estimates 

* 

Region of Peel Estimates 
Region of Halton Estimates 
IC&I Waste Estimate Tables 



May 1994 



List of Schedules - Page i 



Ministry of EnvirotuneiU and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Schedule O Inforniatioii On Current IC&I Waste Diversion Activities 

Schedule 0- 1 General Overview of Private Sector Haulers and Rccyclers in GTA 

Schedule 0-2 Surveys of IC&I Waste Diversion Activities in GTA in 1992 

Schedule 0-3 Mandatory IC&I Recycling Ordinances 

Schedule 0-4 Contacts Made for Estimation of Coverage of 3Rs Regulations 

Schedule 0-5 How Control 



VOLUME n 

Schedule P Residential Net Effects Tables 

Schedule Q IC&I Net EfTects Tables 



May 1 994 List ofScheduies - Page ii 



SCHEDULE A 

POTENTIAL WASTE DIVERSION IMPACTS OF 
SECONDARY ENHANCEMENT COMPONENTS 



Ministry cf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE A — POTENTIAL WASTE DIVERSION IMPACTS OF SECONDARY 
ENHANCEMENT COMPONENTS 

Table 3.3 of the Service Technical Appendix provides an estimate of waste diversion that 
may be achieved through addition of the short and long term secondary enhancement 
components to any of the 6 residential or IC&I waste diversion systems. The following 
provides a brief rationale for the estimates presented in Chapter 2. 

1.6 Landfill Ban on Leaf and Yard Wastes to Force Increased Management on 
Residential Property 

Waste composition estimates indicate that 2% to 11% (Halton 2%, Metro 4.6%, York 7.6%. 
Peel 10.9%, Durham 11%) of residential waste, and 1% of IC&I waste disposed in 1992 was 
leaf and yard waste. Most of this would be diverted if a leaf and yard waste ban was 
imposed. 

1.7 Eliminate Pick-up for Leaf and Yard Waste 

A portion of the 2 to 11% of residential waste which was leaf and yard waste, and was 
disposed in 1992 could be diverted. 

1.8 Increase use of Refillable/Reusable Packaging and Products 

Disposable packaging is 25% of residential waste, and an assumed 25% of IC&I waste 
(Franklin, 1988). Increased use of refiUables and reusable packaging should be able to 
provide every package with at least 10-30 uses (average 20 refills) prior to requiring disposal. 
Assume at least 20% of current disposable packaging (i.e. 5% of the residential waste stieam) 
can be replaced in this way, and that each refiUable/reu sable package has 20 journeys/reuses. 
However, reusable and refillable packaging is often heavier than disposable packaging, 
(twice the weight was assumed for this analysis). Therefore, when disposed (after 20 refills) 
the container weight is heavier, for a net reduction in the disposed weight of 90%. Therefore, 
the portion of the residential waste stream impacted by this change (5%) is reduced by 90%, 
for an overall reduction of 4.5% of residential waste. 

1.9 Landfill Bans on Recyclable Materials - 

Landfill bans currently exist in GTA on many recyclables generated by IC&I sources. Most 
of the gains with a blanket landfill ban policy would be made through increased diversion of 
residential waste. 

For this assessment it is assumed that recyclable material includes: ONP, (X!C, glass, steel, 
aluminum, PET, HDPE, LDPE and half of bulky goods. Residential waste composition 
shows that 25% of the waste stream disposed consists of these materials. It is assumed that a 
landfill ban would probably divert 70% of the targetted materials, therefore this would result 
in diversion of 17.5% (25% x .7) of residential waste. 

1.10 Waste Reduction Planning Requirements for Construction/Demolition 
Projects 

Waste reduction planning requirements for C&D projects would force C&D companies to 
consider 3Rs as part of each project. The requirement to specify that recycled content 
material was used in construction would increase awareness of the availability of these 
materials, and would be likely to strengthen markets. The benefits of this policy would be 
felt over the longer term, as awareness of 3Rs options increase among alllevels of the 
industry. A detailed estimate of the potential diversion impacts of this policy cannot be 
developed in the absence of exact requirements. For this analysis it is considered reasonable 
to assume that this policy would achieve at least 10% diversion of C&D waste. 

May 1994 ~~ Page A-1 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



l.ll Procurement ordinances (favouring durable products, recycled content and/or 
reusable purchases) 

Governments (including Metro Toronto and the City of Toronto) have implemented schemes 
that incorporate the use of recyclable and recycled materials, and durable and reusable 
products (such as price preference for designated recycled or reusable products, 
specifications that contractors use these products etc.). Two examples include GIPPER, 
(Governments Incorporating Procurement Policies to Eliminate Refuse) at the provincial and 
municipal level, and the Peel Region HOW (Help on Waste) program. Procurement 
ordinances reduce waste and support 3Rs activities by driving markets for recycled products. 
At this time, exact impacts on local waste streams (such as in the GTA) can not be identified. 

1.16 Product redesign for increased product life and durability 

The rate of disposal and replacement of existing goods is slowed by extending product life 
and durability of goods resulting in decreased quantities of durable goods disposed. No 
studies presenting accurate estimates of quantities or percent weight reduction are currentiy 
available. However, several companies are presently engaging in R&D to lengthen the 
lifespan of the products they create. Durable goods contribute 4 to 8% of the disposed 
residential waste stream. This could be decreased if product life is lengthened. Assuming 
that the life of a durable good (such as a toaster) were increased from 5 to 7 years (40% 
increase), discard rate for this item could decrease by same amount. A minimum 10% 
increase in product life is not unreasonable to assume. If applied to all durable goods in the 
waste stream (which would require cooperation of all manufacturers of products sold to 
Canadian Consumers) the impact would be 0.4 to 0.8% reduction of the residential waste 
stream. 

1.17 Packaging redesign to reduce quantity and weight 

Packaging constitutes 25% of residential and an assumed 25% of IC&I waste. Packaging 
reduction is recommended as a voluntary means of source reduction through NAPP, and is 
mandated for certain sectors by the Ontario 3Rs regulations. 

Packaging redesign involves reviewing current packaging formats and substituting materials 
that are smaller or of a lighter weight. It incorporates utilization of recycled materials in new 
packaging formats, to reduce the use of virgin materials, McDonald's Restaurants have also 
been active in lightweighting packaging wraps. Many other companies have been 
redesigning packaging and products to incorporate recycled materials, such as Rubbermaid, 
(using secondary LDPE stretch film for plastic and rubber products) and Proctor & Gamble 
and Lever Brothers (using recycled boxboard in detergent board boxes) (Faulkner, 1993). 
Kraft General Foods Canada achieved a 20% reduction with downgauging and 
lightweighting, but like other companies, will need to incorporate full packaging and 
packaging concept redesign to achieve further reductions (Faulkner, 1993). 

As an example, if improvements through packaging redesign could be applied to 20% of 
packaging waste (5% of the overall waste stream) and achieve 30% weight reduction, this 
would result in a net 1.5% diversion increment. 

1.19 Deposit/Refund Systems for a Variety of Materials 

Deposit/refund systems provide an economic incentive for consumers to return rather than 
dispose of the materials on which the deposit was paid. Ontario's Brewers Retail is a well 
known example of a successful deposit-refund system, with reported recovery rates of 94%. 
Jurisdictions which impose deposits or levies on materials such as lead acid batteries or tires 
also report high recoveries. 

Recoveries of many metal, glass and plastic containers are currently reported at 70-90% 
(Barrie MORE project, Quinte) through established Blue Box programs. Assuming that a 
May 1994 PageA-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



deposit system would get 90% recovery of all glass, steel, aluminum and plastic food and 
beverage containers, and that an average of 80% are currently divened incremental diversion 
would be 10% (9O-8O%=10%) of the portion of the waste stream (8-10%) which are food and 
beverage containers, i.e. a diversion increment of 8-10% x 0.1 = 0.8-1%. 

The incremental impact would be 1.6 to 2% in municipalities which currently experience a 
70% recovery level. 

1.24 Develop Infrastructure for Distribution of High Quality Food from Catering 
Facilities (e.g. Second Harvest) 

Food waste constitutes approximately 7% of IC&I waste. A portion of this could be divened 
for human consumption (i.e. through food banks, soup kitchens etc.) or, if this is not viable, 
for consumption as animal feed. As an example, Second Harvest successfully diverted 450 
tonnes of food waste in 1992. The establishment of a central food waste manageinent 
organization would help develop a network to facilitate direction of food waste by retailers 
and manufacturers to appropriate end users. The exact incremental diversion that could be 
attributed to this component would depend on the type of organization established and 
potential end uses for the product. The impact of this component has not been measured to 
date. However assuming that 10% of IC&l food waste is of a suitable quality to be 
redistributed for human consumption, and could be diverted, this results in diversion of 0.7% 
of the IC&I stream. If IC&I waste is 60% of the total waste stream, this component might 
divert 0.4% of the total waste stream. 

1.28 Provide Neighbourhood Leaf Shredders in Fall 

Leaf and yard waste constitutes 2% to 11% of the residential waste stream disposed in GTA 
in 1992. (Durham 11%, Haiton 2%, Metro 4.6%, Peel 10.9%, York 7.6%). C»f this total 25% 
is leaf waste, and 75% is yard waste. Providing leaf shredders would decrease the bulk (and 
increase die density) of leaf wastes. It would contribute to increased diversion by providing 
more options for management of leaf waste (home composting, central composting, local use 
as mulch etc. see Schedule B). Assuming that this measure would help divert half of the 
remaining leaf waste, the diversion increment would be 0.25 to 1 .4% of the residential waste 
stream (2% x .5 x .25 = 0.25%, 1 1% x 0.5 x 0.25 = 1.4%). 

2.5 and 2.13Collection of all dry recyclables and household organics in a 4-stream 

wet/dry collection system 

Performance of a 4-stream wet/dry system should be similar to a three-stream system, where 
overall waste diversion is typically around 50% or more. 

2.6 Collection of Recyclables at all Multi-Family Dwellings 

All multi-family households in buildings with 6 or more units will be provided witii recycling 
service under the 3Rs Regulations. The impacts of extending the requirement to all multi- 
family households would vary from Region to Region, and would depend on the number of 
multi-family households in buildings of less than 6 units in each Region which are not 
currently receiving recycling service. 

6.1 Centralized windrow composting of source separated organics 

This technology would be an alternative approach (to in-vessel processing) to composting 
source separated organics collected from both the residential and IC&I sector by a number of 
systems considered. Organic wastes make up approximately 30% of residential waste, and 
9% of IC&I wastes, therefore this technology would contribute to diversion of this stream. 
The potential to compost source separated organics successfully, in open windrow systems 
without causing odour problems for local residents has been tested at a number of sites (e.g. 
Mississauga). 

May 1994 ' T I Page A-S 



Mirdstry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



6.2 Centralized Windrow Composting of Mixed Waste (third tMig) 

This technology would be an alternative approach (to in-vessel processing) for the mixed 
waste stream directed to composting in a mixed waste processing and composting operation. 
Diversion impacts would be similar to those stated for in-vessel systems (see Chapter 5, 
Service Technical Appendix, Volume 1). 

6.9 Use Centralized Anaerobic Digesters 

Central anaerobic digestion is a processing method which can be used for organic wastes 
(residential and IC&I) after they have been collected from source. It could replace, or be 
used in addition to central (aerobic) in-vessel or windrow composting plants. This 
component can contribute to diversion of up to 30% of residential waste stream, and 9% of 
IC&I waste stream. . 

8.5 Use State-of-the-Art Technologies and Techniques 

Using state of the art technology and approaches is an important feature of all 3Rs systems. 
The impacts on waste diversion which are linked with specific technologies can only be 
estimated when the particular technique/technology is identified. It is assumed that state of 
the art approaches will always improve on the status quo. Each technique or technology will 
either improve diversion or system efficiency in some way. This component is therefore a 
benefit to the diversion system, with diversion achievements quantifiable on a case-by-case 
basis only. 

10.1 No Unprocessed Waste to Landflll (Residential) 

This approach can be accomplished in a nurnber of ways. For residential waste, it can be 
accomplished by retaining source separation programs currently in place (which divert 19 to 
35% of the residential waste stream) and adding a mixed waste processing and composting 
step for all remaining residential waste. Estimates (presented later in the technical appendix) 
show that an estimated 50 to 80% diversion of residential waste is achievable through this 
approach. If this policy were applied to IC&I waste, it is estimated to divert up to 60% of the 
IC&I waste stream. 

10.2 Mandatory Source Separation by Residential Sector 

The Region of Halton implemented a mandatory source separation by-law which resulted in a 
reported 20% increase in the quantities of material collected through source separation 
programs. It is assumed that the same impact could be experienced in other GTA 
municipalities, if this approach were adopted. 

10.5 Require municipalities in GTA to achieve designated diversion targets 

A waste diversion target can provide a focused requirement for achieving waste diversion. 
Assuming establishment of reasonable targets, with adequate collection, processing and 
market development for materials, this component would contribute to increased waste 
diversion. The exact amount would depend on the level of diversion begin achieved when 
the target was set, the infrastructure in place for waste diversion, the ability of the 
municipality to monitor and impact, on behaviour of the IC&I sector, the degree of 
commitment to 3Rs in the residential sector financial resources available, the reasonableness 
of the target and the implications of not meeting the target i.e. is there any cost or downside 
to not meeting the target. 

10.6 Require municipalities in GTA to establish effective waste generation and 
diversion monitoring systems 

By providing good information about waste generation and diversion, strengths and 
weaknesses of existing waste management systems can be identified. This provides the 
required information for adequate system design which should contribute to increased 

diversion of waste. 

May 1994 Page A-i 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



11.4 Allow residences to refuse delivery of unwanted junk mail 

Unaddressed/unsolicited junk mail contributes approximately 871b/hh/year (estimated by 
Recycling Council of Ontario) to the residential waste stream which converts to 15 
kg/cap/year, based on an assumption of 2.6 persons/household. This equates to 3.3 to 4.6% 
of the residential waste stream. A portion of this is likely recycled by householders. 
However, assuming assistance by all residents and junk mail distributors (including Canada 
Post), to reduce junk mail by 50%, total reduction could contribute to diversion of 1.6 to 
2.3% of residential waste. 

11.5 Reject loads with visible designated materials 

The practice of rejecting (or surcharging) loads with visible designated materials is well 
established in GTA. This component provides an incentive to proper source separation of 
materials that should result in increased waste diversion. Direct impacts that can be 
attributed to this measure have not been quantified. 

11.6 Develop landfill management practices which utilize disposed waste as cover 
material 

This component would focus primarily on some IC&I wastes which have reasonably uniform 
consistency, and may include materials such as foundry sand, shredder fluff and similar 
materials. Rather than be disposed in the landfill, they would be source separated and used as 
daily cover, thus eliminating the need to use borrow material for this purpose. This approach 
increases landfill life by putting waste material to a beneficial use. Cover material typically 
occupies up to 20% of a landfill's capacity and this could save a portion of landfill capacity 
typically occupied by cover material. In addition, some materials have properties that make 
them suitable as cover material at a thickness less than is required when using traditional soil 
cover. If these are materials which would otherwise have been disposed in the working cell, 
then their use provides three benefits: reduction in the volume taken up by cover 
requirements; beneficial use of material which would otherwise be disposed, and savings in 
developing a new borrow pit. 

11.7 Produce compost on-site for landfill cover and preserve capacity 

Wet organic materials, including leaf and yard and household kitchen wastes would be 
collected separately and composted at the landfill site (or at a separate composting facility). 
Compost produced would not have to achieve top quality standards, as it would be used 
immediately as daily cover on the landfill, replacing the need for borrow material. This 
component has the benefit of developing a ready market for "inferior" compost materials. 
This use of organic materials could divert quantities similar to central composting and 
preserve landfill capacity by displacing borrow material with material which would otherwise 
have been disposed as waste. 

11.8 Volume based disposal fees 

At present, disposal fees are usually based on weight of materials disposed. A switch to 
volume based disposal fees is likely to provide an incentive to decreased disposal of materials 
which are bulky and of greater volume but for which disposal is based on weight. The exact 
impact of the component is linked with the exact fees chosen. 

12.1 Strong Educational Programs at All Educational Institutions (Schools, 

Universities, Colleges, etc.) 
Strong 3Rs educational programs at all educational institutions would promote increased 
awareness and knowledge of 3Rs. This would have an impact on waste diversion in both the 
short and long term by making young people conscious of a conservcr lifestyle, where waste 
generation is reduced. Impacts on waste diversion are difficult to estimate, because of lack of 
information on long term impacts of education on 3Rs behaviour, but is assumed positive. 

May 1994 ^ I TageAl 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



13.3 Grant programs to support source reduction in residential sector 

Grant programs can be developed to encourage development of community programs to 
support waste reduction in the residential sector. Grants may be applied to promotion and 
education programs, developing local waste exchange initiatives etc. The grants act as an 
incentive to community action, and can lead to increased waste diversion. It is difficult to 
measure the direct impacts of this type of program, and information on the incremental waste 
diversion impact is not available at this time, however, over time the impacts could be up to 
1 % reduction of the residential waste stream. 

13.4 Full cost accounting forcing municipalities to charge the full or total cost of 
waste management 

This component would remove any subsidies of waste disposal at the municipal and 
residential level. Residents would be aware of the full cost of waste disposal (through 
itemized tax bills etc.). Tipping fees would reflect the true cost of waste disposal. If the cost 
of disposal is greater than the cost of waste diversion, this component may therefore provide 
increased incentives to diversion. However, in GTA, costs of disposal are presently between 
$50 and $70/tonne and this is likely close to the true cost of disposal and the actual impact of 
the policy would be limited. 

Charging the full cost of waste management to householders (as in a Direct Cost System) 
significantly impacts on diversion behaviour, and would increase residential diversion 
significantly in all GTA Regions. 

14.1 Integrate waste diversion with economic development programs to create 
markets for secondary materials 

Developing markets for secondary materials is a key issue in waste diversion. If adequate 
markets are not available, materials must be warehoused (if not landfilled), which reduces the 
cost-effectiveness and overall waste reduction effects of the program. Creating local markets 
for secondary materials will stabilize demand, and provide sustainability to programs. 
However, many local market development programs are small rather than large scale. At this 
time, the direct impacts of this measure on local diversion have not been measured, but are 
assumed to be positive, particularly if larger industries, which can use all of the locally 
collected recyclables as feedstock, can be established. 

14.2 Mandate product stewardship with requirements for market development 

Market development is an essential element of a full scale product stewardship program. The 
German Green Dot program is experiencing severe market related problems at this time, 
partially due to inadequate market development efforts prior to the program launch. Overall 
recovery targets for sales packaging materials were set at 72% diversion each for glass, tin 
and aluminum, and 64% diversion each for cardboard, paper, plastic and composites by 
weight. These targets require collection of 80% of materials available (by weight) and 
sorting of 90% of the collected quantities (Warmer Bulletin, May 1993). These targets are to 
be met by July 1995 and include marketing of materials. To date, in Germany, overall 
diversion has been limited to approximately 30% of materials recovered, with the remaining 
70% being landfilled (Saul, May 1993). This problem results from inadequate market 
structure for recovered materials, high system costs (that were inadequately predicted) and 
confusion with division of collection responsibilities (between the municipal and private 
sectors). 

Over time, with careful attention to details, it is expected that this component could result in 
recovery of 80% to 90% of packaging (25% of residential waste), thereby contributing to 
diversion of 20% of residential waste (all dry material). Some of this material is currendy 
diverted through existing programs (BioCycle, June, 1993). 
May 1994 '■ PageA-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



15.1 Expand Blue Box system to cover all IC&I facilities who want to participate, 
with focus on institutional and commercial 

Currently, in various municipalities (e.g. City of Toronto) some small IC&I generators 
(restaurants etc.) are inco(porated in Blue Box collection systems. By providing a convenient 
service to nwre IC&I facilities, waste diversion is increased. Expanding this service to a 
wider range of institutional and commercial facilities would avoid the need for identifying 
and organizing alternative collection systems for recyclable materials. By providing a 
convenient opportunity to recycle to more IC&l generators, waste diversion from this sector 
would increase. The impact of this measure would depend on the number and type of 
generators that would receive this service. 

15.2 Provision of bins at major IC&I facilities (e.g. hospitals, schools, shopping malls 
etc) 

Providing recycling bins at IC&I facilities would increase convenience of waste diversion at 
IC&I facilities and help promote recycling in this sector. Specific impacts would be linked 
with the number and types of facilities providing bins and their subsequent use of the 
infrastructure. Impacts of this component would depend on the number of facilities involved. 

15.8 Short term (3 to 6 month) storage of IC&I materials to take advantage of 
emerging technologies andVor market prices 

This component provides protection against poor market prices for secondary materials by 
providing the opportunity to store materials and benefit from stronger prices as they increase. 
This removes a possible economic disincentive to waste diversion and is likely to contribute 
indirectly to increased waste diversion. Specific impacts of the component depend on the 
materials involved, and for that reason, at this time, no specific diversion impact is estimated. 

16.5 Use centralized anaerobic digesters 

Sec comment on 6.9 

19.5 Replace collection and processing equipment and approach with state-of-the-art 
technology world wide (from Japan, Germany etc.) 

See comment on 8.5 

20.5 Require retailers and/or producers to establish recovery systems for designated 
prcKiucts and packaging 

Packaging constitutes approximately 25% of residential waste (Franklin, 1988). Packaging 
reduction is recommended as a voluntary means of source reduction through NAPP, and is 
mandated for cenain sectors by the Ontario 3Rs regulations. Packaging recovery systems are 
being established or are under consideration in a number of jurisdictions. . 

See comments on 14.2. 

20.6 Deposit/refund system for soft drink containers 

By imposing a deposit/refund system on soft drink containers, an immediate incentive to 
waste diversion is provided at the consumer level, which can contribute to high recovery of 
the materials involved. If applied to beverage containers (which constitute 2% of the 
residential waste stream), the incremental diversion associated with this component would be 
0.2% of the residential waste stream, assuming that 70-90% (assume average 80% for this 
discussion) of these containers are currently recovered through Blue Box programs, and that 
a deposit/refund system would increase recovery to over 90% (2% of waste stream x assumed 
10% not recovered). The incremental impact would be diversion of 0.4% of the waste stream 
if only 70% is recovered through existing programs. 

See comments on 1 . 1 9 

May 1994 ' ~" ^ PageT? 



Ministry of Envirotmtent and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



20.8 Mandatwy recovery rates and targets for specific materials 

This component involves government (usually at the provincial level) mandating a specific 
recovery rate for designated materials. This approach has been used in a number of 
jurisdictions. It further involves developing the adequate infrastructure to support recovery 
of the materials and ensuring public participation in the scheme. Should these conditions be 
met, this component increases waste diversion, with specific impacts of the component 
dependent on die recovery rates established and on the materials that are mandated. 

20.16 Mandated levies or taxes to support 3Rs 

A levy or tax placed on designated materials is expected to a have a dual benefit. First, it 
could be applied against any material (such as the use of virgin newsprint) to help encourage 
resource efficiency and stimulate demand for recycled materials. Secondly, it could provide 
a pool of funds to expand or support existing or developing recycling programs and 
infrastructure. A levy or tax in support of 3Rs programs would therefore contribute to waste 
diversion. The exact impact would be quantified by identifying levy or tax targets and 
potential uses of funds generated. 

21.1 Change approval process to require new IC&I facilities to design for reduction 
and re-use 

Regulations would be required mandating development of reduction and re-use plans prior to 
approval of new IC&I facilities. Plans would be submitted to authorities prior to obtaining 
approval for new facilities. Waste diversion would be increased by planning in advance for 
reduction and re-use in facilities (providing adequate space, etc.). In addition, if the approval 
process included requirements for use of recycled content materials in buildings, it would 
stimulate markets for these products, and contribute to the sustainability of diversion 
systems. 

21.2 Establishment of central food waste management organization 

Sec comment on 1.24. 

21.3 Allow locations to refuse delivery of unwanted "junk mail" 

Unaddressed/unsolicited junk mail contributes a sizable portion of mail received in IC&I 
locations annually. By permitting or assisting IC&I facilities to refuse delivery of junk mail, 
waste would be reduced at source, contributing to waste diversion. The specific impact of 
this component on IC&I waste has not been measured. The percentage of IC&I waste which 
is junk mail is not known. 

21.4 Develop and implement a material use guideline 

Development of a material use guideline covers a number of different activities and materials 
(such as a guideline on appropriate materials to use as backfill, potential uses for various 
waste materials etc.). The direct effects of this component would depend on the materials 
involved, and current management practices. 

22.1 Strong Educational Program at all Education Institutions (Schools, Universities, 
Colleges, etc.) 

Strong 3Rs educational programs at all educational institutions would promote increased 
awareness and knowledge of 3Rs. This would have an impact on waste diversion in both the 
short and long term by making young people conscious of a conserver lifestyle, where waste 
generation is reduced. Impacts on waste diversion are difficult to estimate, because of lack of 
information on long term impacts of education on 3Rs behaviour, but is assumed positive. 

22.4 Establish databank on waste reduction technologies and system design 

Using up to date technology and system design is an important feature of all 3Rs systems, 
contributing to efficiency and a high quality of secondary materials. Establishing a databank 
May 1994 Page A-8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



on waste reduction technologies and system design would contribute to waste diversion 
indirecdy by ensuring that information on the most appropriate technologies is available. 

23.2 Grant Pn^am to Support Source Reduction 

Impacts of grant program would depend on generators to whom grant is provided, and the 
technologies/approaches involved. This program would promote development of new 
methods and technologies which would reduce waste. If transferable to other sectors, the 
grant program would have impacts on reduced waste generation over the long term. 

23.4 Self-imposed levies by producers to promote 3Rs 

Voluntary "product stewardship" initiatives have been launched in several sectors (e.g. Black 
& Decker has instituted a $5 rebate to customers who return old appliances or tools for 
recycling) (Creed, April, 1993). The most famous such program is the German Green Dot 
program where companies formed a corporation to set and administer levies designed to 
finance development of a nation-wide recycling infrastructure for all consumer products. 

Such levies can take any number of forms, and can be applied at any level, and on any 
product or group of products. The impact of this component cannot be measured without 
details of a specific program. The component would contribute to waste diversion by 
providing opportunities for recycling, potential incentives to consumers to recycle or through 
supftort of 3Rs initiatives through market development. 

24.1 Funding and incentives to recycling industries and other industries that utilize 
secondary materials 

By providing funding and incentives to recycling industries and others to support utilization 
of secondary materials, market development would be supported. This would indirectiy lead 
to increased diversion by promoting existing and potentially expanding new markets for 
secondary materials. Impacts on waste diversion are linked with levels of funding, targets 
and materials supported. 

Providing financial support to industries that utilize secondary materials would help establish 
these industries in GTA. This in turn would stabilize markets for secondary materials, by 
creating a steady, local demand, and would contribute to the long term sustainability of 3Rs. 

24.2 Funding incentives to product manufacturers to utilize secondary materials 

Funding incentives would support market development for secondary materials, stabilize 
markets for secondary materials, and possibly lead to increased waste diversion. 

24.6 Purchasing specifications to promote recycled content 

Companies that develop purchasing specifications promoting recycled content contribute to 
waste diversion through market development. Several companies are moving into this area. 
For example, Rubbermaid utilizes secondary LDPE stretch film for plastic and rubber 
products, and Proctor & Gamble and Lever Brothers use recycled boxboard in detergent 
board boxes (Faulkner, September 1993). This component contributes indirectly to waste 
diversion. Given competitive prices and a high quality of secondary materials, it is expected 
that companies will increasingly incorporate recycled materials in their purchasing 
specifications and waste diversion programs will have stable markets for processed materials 
and will continue to increase as a result. 



MayJ994 PageA-9 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



References 

BioCycle. June, 1993. Putting Responsibility on Industry. BioCycle. 

Creed, Murray. April, 1993. TQP Brings Environmental Innovation to Black & Decker. 
PWMC Waste Reduction Bulletin, 

Faulkner, Douglas. September, 1993. The Innovators. Canadian Packaging. 

Franklin Associates Ltd. 1988. Analysis of Trends in Municipal Solid Waste Generation 
1972 to 1987. Franklin Associates Ltd. 

National Packaging Protocol. 1992. Results of the 1990 National Packaging Survey. 
National Packaging Protocol. 

Saul, Steven. 1993. A Comparison of DSD and Eco-Emballages. RIS Europe 

TRC Trash Research Corporation. August 27, 1992. Excavations at Four Toronto Area 
Landfills. 1991. 

Wanner Bulletin. May, 1993. Over- Packaging or Over-Consumption? Warmer Bulletin. 



May 1994 PageA-lO 



SCHEDULE B 

SOURCE REDUCTION AND OTHER WASTE 
DIVERSION CONSIDERATIONS 



B-1 Source Reduction 

B-2 Promotion and Education 

B-3 Leaf and Yard Waste Management 

B-4 Multi-Family Residence Recycling 

B-5 Mandatory Source Separation 

B-6 Product Stewardship 

B-7 Collection System Design Decisions 

B-8 Future Waste Generation and Composition 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE B-1 — SOURCE REDUCTION 

Reduction measures rank above recycling on the waste managemenit hierarchy, and should be 
used as much as possible for waste diversion jjrior to consideration of recycling strategies. 
Source reduction includes the design, manufacture, purchase and/or use of products and 
materials in a way thai reduces their amount and toxicity before they arc disposed. The term 
"source reduction" is used here to include only "those measures that reduce materials that have 
the potential to become solid waste before they enter the solid waste stream" (source - WRAC 
Roadmap). Source reduction, in the context of this report also includes reuse. Reuse refers to 
using a product as many times as is possible in its original form. 

Waste reduction activities eliminate waste before it can occur by making waste generators 
aware of how their actions and choices can influence the production of waste. Source 
reduction programs offer significant waste diversion potential and avoid the need for waste 
collection, processing and disposal. 

In general, source reduction measures include: 

• reducing product volume and packaging (e.g. "hghtweighting" packages) 

• increasing product life and durability 

• purchasing products selectively and decreasing product consumption (for example 
buying bulk, borrowing items, buying products in recyclable packaging, etc.) 

• promoting re-use (e.g. rcfillable packages, reuse centres) 

• promoting practices which decrease waste generation such as alternative 
landscaping, xeriscaping, grasscycling and backyard composting (for the purpose 
of the GTA 3Rs analysis, backyard composting is categorized as recycling). 

These measures are achieved through changes made by designers, manufacturers, and 
consumers (individuals and businesses). Canada's National Packaging Protocol (NAPP) has 
estabhshed a goal of a 50 percent reduction in packaging waste by the year 20(X) and specified 
that one half of this total reduction be achieved through source reduction measures. However, 
individuals and municipalities can also play an active role in making source reduction happen 
locally. 

Individual Actions 

Each individual makes decisions and takes actions that determines the amount of waste they 
generate. Actions and choices that individuals can undertake to reduce waste at source include: 

• purchasing choices: to reduce waste, consumers should look for products that 
arc durable, come in refillable packaging, have less packaging and, if possible, are 
available in bulk; 

• alternatives to disposal and recycling: whenever possible, individuals can 
look for ways that an item can be reused rather than disposed or recycled. 
Repairing broken items, selling items at garage/rammage sales, altering clothing 
and giving items to charity are all viable alternatives to generating nwre waste; 

• not purchasing an item to begin with: looking for ways to avoid purchasing 
an item to begin with can prevent the ultimate disposal of an item. Borrowing, 
renting or recognizing that an item isn't necessary (ie, deciding not to buy it) can be 
considered source reducticMi. 

May 1994 '■ Page B 1-1 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Municipal Actions 

Municipalities play a large role in source reduction through their influence on residents and 
businesses. A range of activities for municipalities to undertake to maximize source reduction 
are listed below: 

• community outreach: Because an individual's level of understanding of waste 
generation affects their ability to choose appropriate actions, municipalities should 
involve themselves in source reduction education and awareness. Municipal 
programs should provide information and assistance to individuals and companies 
to enable them to undertake voluntary source reduction efforts. 

Examples of ccmmunity outreach activities are: 

— education workshops, such as a Master Composter program and shopper 
awareness campaigns 

— brochures explaining source reduction actions 

— develc^ing school cuiriculum 

— public service announcements on radio, TV and in newspapers 

— labelling of products and packages that minimize waste (similar to the national 
£co-Loga program) 

— giveaways of waste minimizing items such as cotton shopping bags and 
portable mugs 

— directories/guides far repair, rental and used goods services 

• incentives: Financial mechanisms are used to encourage waste generators to 
decrease their garbage and to stimulate new business development focused on 
source reduction. Example of fmancial incentives include providing grants to 
individuals/companies to research product and packages that reduce waste, 
providing "prizes" to individuals/businesses that achieve exemplary source 
reduction, and providing funding to source reduction businesses such as reuse 
centres. 

• disincentives: regulations, resnictions and taxes are examples of disincentives to 
waste production. Source reduction can be encouraged when taxes are levied on 
disposable and/or excessively packaged goods, bans are placed on the sale of a 
packaging material or product, and landfill bans are imposed on a given material. 
Other disincentives include volume-based disposal rates and disposal surcharges on 
certain materials. 

• forums: providing forums for source reduction can encourage participation and 
awareness of reduction possibilities. Such forums include holding community 
"SWAP" days, on-line computer waste exchanges and meetings for information 
exchange. 

It is equally important for a municipality to lead by example. Incorporating purchasing polices 
that reduce waste at the source and practicing measures that reduce waste (internal reuse of 
materials, donations of usable goods to non-profit agencies, grasscycling, etc.) indicate to 
observers that source reduction is not only favorable, but practical. 

The creation of a Waste Reduction Office also shows commitment to waste reduction efforts 
and ensures that the municipal focus on waste reduction (before recycling and disposal) is not 
lost. A Waste Reduction Office would be responsible for promotion and education, ensuring 

May 1994 '■ Page B I -2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



that the forums are in place for individuals and businesses to participate effectively, and that 
existing programs are successful. 

Reduction Targets 

Several jurisdictions have established source reduction targets for the year 2000. Some of 
these include: 8-10% for New York State, 10% for the State of Massachusetts, 13.5% for 
Berkeley, California and 15% in the Town of Markhara, Ontario. Most of these communities 
are relying on backyard composting to help them achieve their targets. In the case of Berkeley, 
Califomia, backyard composting is estimated to contribute 6% to the source reduction target. 

Other jurisdictions have implemented programs to promote source reduction, but with lower 
anticipated targets than those mentioned above. For example: 

• the City of Boulder, Colorado introduced the term "precycling" to increase 
consumer awareness about ways to minimize waste through effective changes in 
shopping behaviour and attitudes. The campaign features in-store promotional and 
educational activities, school educational programs and a media launch. These 
activities are anticipated to achieve 3% reduction of the waste sd^am. 

• the City of Blane, Minnesota has embarked on a defflOnstiation program to achieve 
5% source reduction through a series of educational programs and activities. 
Approximately one-fifth of the City's 10,000 households have been targeted to 
receive printed materials, promotional kits and attend neighbouiiiood workshops 
pranoting source reduction in the home. The program also involves monitoring the 
residential waste stream throughout the study in an attempt to quantify the 
reduction. 

• the State of Rhode Island's source reduction activities include direct cost programs, 
backyard and commercial on-site composting, materials reuse, waste exchanges, 
public education and consumer awareness programs. Through diis diverse 
program, the State anticipates a reduction of waste of up to 10%. (SRMG, 1993) 

Limitations of Source Reduction 

There are some limitations to the applicability of source reducticm programs. These include: 

• source reduction measures are difficult to quantify due to inability to determine if 
waste reduction was the direct result of a source reduction effort. In some 
instances, reduction may have occurred as a result of illegal dumping, private 
recycling activities, etc.; 

• the public is very consumer-oriented and not easily convinced that "less is more"; 

• promoting source reducti(Mi in an integrated arKl consistent manner is difficult due to 
the often contradictory messages from marketers, environmental groups and the 
various departments and levels of governments; 

• municipal experience is somewhat limited in the execution of waste reduction 
programs; 

• programs are often considered to be "high cost" relative to their tangible returns. 



May 1994 Page B 1-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical AppentUx 



Feasible Source Reduction Targets for the GTA 

Residential waste stream 

Because of th& limitations in available data, and the uncertainty regarding future source 
reduction of residential waste, source reduction attributed to only two factors is included in 
residential waste diversion estimates. These are: 

• NAPP;and 

• increased education. 

The National Packaging Protocol (NAPP) has targeted a 50% overall reduction in the 
packaging waste stream by the year 2000, relative to a 1988 baseline. Source reduction is the 
preferred option among the 3Rs. It is an objective that fifty percent of waste diversion shall be 
achieved through new source reduction and new reuse initiatives with recycling making up the 
remainder (National Taskforce on Packaging, 1993). Assuming that packaging constitutes 
30% of the residential waste stream, this would lead to a 7.5% overall reduction by the year 
2000. For the purpose of this study, a conservative estimate of 7.5% waste diversion through 
source reduction by the year 2015 has been adopted. A uniform source reduction rate of 
0.33% per year has been assumed to achieve this value. 

A ftuiher reduction, atoibutable to increased public education about waste reduction and reuse, 
has been assumed for this study. It is assumed that by 2015, an additional 0.5% reduction 
would be gained by extending tfie life of durable goods, reusing and repairing items, buying 
food in smaller quantities, using leftovers, etc. A uniform rate of 0.02% per year has been 
assumed to Achieve this value. Tliese figures do not take into consideration the effects of a ban 
on the collection of grass clippings and other yard wastes. 

Therefore, from a baseline year of 1992, to the year 2015 (23 years), source reduction is 
assumed to reduce the weight of residential waste disposed by a total of 8% achieved in the 
year 2015. An estimated 3% source reduction value is reached by the year 2000, 

IC&I Waste Stream 

Source reduction of IC&I waste in the future is attributed to at least three major factors, which 

• changes in the employment profile of each GTA Region; 

• innovation by IC&I generators; 

• innovation by the C&D sector. 

The methods used to estimate source reduction as a result of these three factors are described 
below. 

Source Reduction due to Changes in the employment Profile of each GTA Region: 
Future employment in each major IC&I sector in each Region was compared to current 
employment to determine if there was a major shift towiuds IC&I groups which have 
traditionally been lower waste generators. The IC&I per employee generation rates were used 
to adjust future IC&I waste generation estimates. This was carried out by assuming that 
regional IC&I waste generadc»i would continue at the rates experienced around 1987. Changes 
in generation as a result of employment shifts to different industries in each GTA Region are 
presented in Schedule O. 



May 1994 PageBl^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



Source Reduction due to Innovation 

The IC&I sector (excluding the construction and demolition sector which is addressed 
separately) is expected to roduce the generation of some wastes over the planning period 
through modernization, process change, increased operational efficiencies, etc. While it is 
generally accepted that diis trend is occurring and will continue, because of global competitiOT, 
etc., very litde quantitative data are available on the impacts of this trend on future IC&I waste 
generation for the whole IC&I sector. Many case studies quote exceptional programs where 
significant reductions have been achieved (some are described in Schedule O). However, these 
are high profile examples of innovative behaviour and cannot be applied to the total IC&I sector 
for waste generation estimates. A modest source reduction allowance of 0.5% per year in 
waste reduction, starting in 1993, and continuing to the year 2015 (when the reduction 
increment would be 1 1.5%) was used for this analysis. 

Source Reduction in the C&D Sector 

(jonstniction and demolition waste was separated from other IC^I waste for this study, as its 
method of generation is different to other IC&I wastes. The construction and demolition 
industry will also innovate, and continue to develop more efficient construction methods. An 
allowance of 0.25% per year, beginning in 1993, and increasing by increments of 0.25% per 
year from 1993 to 2015 was applied to estimate source reduction in C&D waste generation 
each year. On this basis, reduction of C&D waste would reach 5.75% by the year 2015. 

These estimates result in an overall source reduction of 5% of IC&I waste by the year 2(X)0, 
measured against a 1992 baseline, and 17.2% by the year 2015, measured against a 1992 
baseline. 



References 

AUoway, David. 1992. Does Source Reduction Work?, Resource Recycling. July 1992. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) 1991. Canadian Code of Preferred 
Packaging Practices, 199\. 

City of Berkley. 1992. Source Reduction and Recycling Element: Household Hazardous Waste 
Element. February 1992. 

City of Boulder. 1992. Precycle. 

City of Los Angeles. 1992. Textile Reuse Centre Directory. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Source Reduction and Recycling Initiatives. 
May 1991. ^ . 

Garbage. 1993. Packaging in the 90's. Dec/Jan 1993. 

Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). 1992. Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, 
Costs, Results. 1992. 

Kashmanian et al. 1990. Source Reduction and Recyclability: Recent Market Activities, 
Resource Recycling. July 1990. 

Logsdon, Gene. 1991. Slowing the Flow to the Landfill. Biocyclc. May 1991. 



May 1994 Page BIS 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



LURA Group. 1992. Revised Funding Proposal for the Town of Markham Demonstration 
Model Community Programme. Prepared for the Ministry of the Environment. 1992. 

Ministry of the Environment, 1992. Meeting the Challenge; Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Activities 
in the GTA, 1992. 

Minnesota Office of Waste Managenient. 1992. Itasca County Government: Waste Abatement 
and Cost Savings (Fact Sheets). 1992. 

National Task Force on Packaging. 1992. National Packaging Protocol: 1988 Benchmark 
Estimates. 1992. 

National Task Force on Packaging. 1992. National Packaging Protocol: Results of the 1990 
National Packaging Survey. 1992. 

Ontario Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Strategy Team. 1993. Conserving 
Resources and Minimizing Waste in the Construction Industry. October 1993 

Resource Integration Systems (RIS). 1991. C(fy of Rolling Hills: Source Reduction and : 
Recycling Element. Prepared for the City of Rolling Hills, California. March 1991. 

Resource Recycling. 1990. Wflsre /ieducrion Afovj. June 1990. 

Sound Resource Management Group (SRMG). 1993. Rhode Island at the Recycling 
Crossroads. Prepared for the Rhode Island War on Waste. February 1993. 

University of California. 1991. Source Reduction for Municipalities. Prepared for the City of 
New York, N.Y. 1991. 

Waste Reduction Research, Gamer & Associates, Tellus Institute. 1993. Source Reduction 
Quantification Methods for Cities and Counties. January 1993. 

Personal Communications and Comments 

Anderson, P. 1993. Personal Conraiunications with Paul Anderson, City of Burlington, May 
1993. 

Cody, L. 1993. Personal communications with Lynn Cody, Cahfomia Integrated Waste 
Management Board, May 1993. 

Jones, M. 1993. Personal communications with Mark Jones, City of Oakville, May 1993. 

Keyser, L. 1993. Personal communications with Liz Keyser, Montgomery County, Ohio, May 
1993. 

Newten, M. 1993. Personal communications with Mona Newton, Boulder Energy 
Conservation Centre, Colorado, May 1993. 

Springer, T. 1993. Personal communications with Tom Springer, Consultant, May 1993. 



May 1994 PageBl-6 



Table B 1-1 
Summary ofSelecled Source Reduction ProRrams 




CAMPAIGN 
Seatde, Washington 



SHOPPtH AWAkLNti.!i 

CAMPAIGN 

West Palm Beach. Rorida 



COMMUNri'V kkUiJt 
EVENT 

CoUing wood. ON 

PROWfOTlOkl Ul- ktUi>t 

CENTRES 

Los Angeles. California 

REUSbTtNlkU 

"WASTEWISE" 

MaJton Hills, ON 



DcseriptiMi 



the Shop Sliiari program proimcs waste reduction at the pojni ot purchase in grocery stores 
SftnighVovidrng >nfornIat,on on w.se purchasing choices, .n-s.ore events, volunteers and media 

iKS'Sfocusare: minimal packaging, recyclable packaging, recycled-conient packaging and 

lolum«« Sned on packaging waste reduction and then go .o gr^Kery stores to staff displays 

and give tours. Volunteers also attended community events. 

Choosey, the program mascot appears on all promoiiona] materials 

shelf talkers are used on "Smart Choice" producis 

Choosey appears on canvas shopping bags thai are used as give-aways k- , ,„ 

prem^ted^sl cards and lisis ofmanufaclurers' addresses and toll-free phc.ne numbers are 

JroK to encourage shoppers to register complaints and compliments about products and 

packaging 

£rj^ pu!r.tf,;jSf''n?in-Sniart • choices ,o indica.e how much more expensive the 

products are than "Smart" aliematives 

kick-off events were held at each store ,i ftj- — — 

the Solid Wasle Authority promot es solid waste diversion througn an hnvironmental Shoppers 

'i'S Shcjp^rs Us'i'pTomo^'es packaging reduction, recycled content, recyclability and 

r^trs"SKr rS'canvas shopping bag and disuibuted ,o residents on request 
program is promoted through newspaper ads, special events and presentations 
utilizes volunteers 

S 1 2.000 fr om a suie grant has been allocated for this project 

the local tVlmisis Club organized a SWAF day (similar to a garage sale) 

residents were asked to bring any reusable material (clothing, fumiiure, goods, eic) to a 

community centre for donation lo this fundraising event . ■ ■- 

the l^iiy develops and circulates brochures indicating the location ana activities of ihnft shops 
throughout the Ciiy 



RCJMtltl 



WASTtlWI^JL is a community -based rest^urce cenue and oiversion lacility mat is funded by alt 

levels of government, some businesses and individuals 

utilizes volunteers, in addition to paid staff 

there are 4 differeni componenis lo WASTEWISE: 

I education centre and infomution service 

2. reuse centre which accepts and sells office furniture, household gcxxls, etc. Items are sold by 

Trcpair area where volunieers and community groups repair broken appliances, tools and 

equipment 

4. recycling depot for items not accepted in Blue Box : 



effective because most people 
shop at the same store on a 
regular basis 

a 14% average inaease in bag 
reuse was noted in the first 4 
months of the campaign 
program was most successful 
when volunteers were at the 
stores 

nrsi year program costs were 
S95,CIOO. On- going costs 
expected to be $25,CIOO 



an average of 13U bags are 
distributed monthly 



85-90% of goods were sold and 
over $6,000 was raised . 



I .1% of the total waste 
generated is diverted through 
thrift shops and Rarage sales 
in their first 15 nionths ol 
operation, they diverted 109 
tonnes of materials from 25 
organizations 



5| 



I 
I 



I 



fi^tmm 



San Francisco. California 



Waste kxchanoh 

Caledon Reusable Goods 

Exchange 



WASTLRtl3U(_'IION 

OFHCE 

Ceniie South Hastings 



MUNICIPAL WokkiiNul* 
Berlin, Germany 



GRANTS 

Metropolitan Toronio. ON 



LABELLING 

IGA in Belleville, ON 



C6MMUNrrV 6UTREA0H 
Cologne. Germany 



Dvtttifmn' 



Bay Area (!i6llective Keiise Sysietii relneves and dislriDutes a wide vaneiy o( reusable discard for 

useby thecomniunily 

provides publicity and education on reuse 

donations are taa deductible , . 

salvage centre adjacent to landnil 
residents can bring or take non-hazardous items 
also includes a tentite drop-off box for Goodwill 
shed to protect clotliiiig and furniture 



the municipality established a waste reduction office and hired a waste reduction ollicer to 
implement and coordinate a number of waste reduction and reuse programs, 
projects currenily underway include information packages designed to assist local businesses and 
community services in source reduction, monthly newspaper articles, developing a local 

"grasscycling" program, developing reuse directories and starting a reuse centre , 

tbe Berlin model for waste reduction was conducted with 50 volunteer (amities 
participants were educated by trained consultanis about the problems of managing residential waste 
and opportunities for reduction ^ , i ^ 

alter training, families source separated 6 categories of materials, weighed them and kept detailed 

quanUUes and percentages of waste materials generated were measured prior to, during and after 
the educational program , 



Community Action Waste keduction CJrants hogram was initiated in 1990 to provide support to 
community and environmental groups in their efforts to develop innovative programs lo encourage 
3Rs activities 

projects funded include 3 Rs booklets and communitY composting projects \ 

h> independent I Ga grocery sto re features an "bcoiag" program which labels products according 
10 their environmental preferability. Every product on the shelf is given orie or more of ihe 



lO men CIIVUIJIIIUCIIHJ' l/ititiauiiiij- •^•^•j f^.«™_ ...--- — -- - o 

following labels: Best Packaging, Recommended Recyclable. Earth preserver 



a 2 vear study lo determine Ihe potential for waste diversion with a fixus on source reduciioii 

education was the main tool to promote source reduction. Acuvities include: information offices. 

Information booths at markets and street dances, information disuibuled to schools and community 

associations, a telephone hotline, door-to-door contact and special information events 

the information booths and the schools education were particularly successful 

good communicailon was established through letters lo churches and community organizalions 



R«sdts 



reduced cost of waste hauling 

services 

diverted 300 tonnes over 2 

years 

estimate 75 tons diverted from 
landfill 



overall, a 15-20% waste 
reduction was achieved; prior 
to Ihe program, each household 
produced 4.47 kg per day; 
during training, waste 
quantities dropped 20%; after 
training, quantities rose by 
15%; and finally, after a 
renewed education program, it 
was reduced by 30% 



over 14 projects were funded 

for a total of S88.562 



results of survey indicate that 
some customers changed their 
buying habits as a result of the. 
labels 



6% reduction attributed to 

source reduction 

an additional 1 1% increase in 

source separated maieriats 

achieved 

project costs for study were 

S8QO.0OQ 



(4 






6| 



i 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis ~ Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE B-2 — PROMOTION AND EDUCATION 

Implementation of a waste management strategy will change the way individuals and 
organizations think about and manage their waste. Economic incentives will be introduced, 
new policies and laws will be put in place, new collection and processing infrastructures will 
be developed for recycling and composting, and new planning and data gathering requirements 
will be established. To ensure that residents and businesses understand and support these 
changes, public education and promotional programs must be developed. 

Education is a tool used to transfer information to a particular audience. Some educational 
programs are long-term campaigns designed to bring about behaviour change through 
awareness. Examples of such programs include developing school curriculum and 
encouraging shoppers to avoid over-packaged goods. A promotion program will motivate 
people to participate in a particular program, and inform the audience of a particular topic or 
event, such as the start of a new recycling program, . 

A promotion and education program is essential to achieve the following: 

• to creiate widespread awareness of waste diversion activities taking place in the 
community; 

• to motivate people to participate in current and new waste reduction programs (e.g. 
backyard composting, source reduction activities, IC&I activities, etc.). Higher 
participation rates will directly affect program success; 

• to give residents detailed information on exacdy what to do and how to do it. 
Residents must be familiar with how to properly sort and prepare materials to help 
the hauler increase the collection efficiency at the curb, and to meet market 
specifications; 

• to ensure ongoing participation in recycling and waste reduction programs; 

• to give positive recognition to the community for their efforts (to encourage 
residents to continue participating in waste reduction programs). 

Some promotional techniques can also be used to evaluate a program. For example, a feedback 
mechajusm such as a survey can be implemented to encourage residents to comment and make 
suggestions as to how the program can be improved. 

However, to maximize the effectiveness of promotional and educational activities, a strategy 
must be developed. 

Promotion/Education Strategy Development 

There are eight steps in the development of an effective promotion and education strategy. 
Those arc: 

1 . Conduct an audience research program 

2. Establish goals and objectives 

3. Develop fcnmal communication plans 

4. Target your audience 

5 . Select appropriatemedia 

6. Coordinate effcHts of participating organizations 

7. Foster public input and participation 

8. Allocate adequate funding " 

May 1994 PageBl-l 



Ministry cf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



1. Conduct an audience research program: The better a municipality understands the 
demographic make-up, attitudes and behaviours of its residents, the more effectively it can 
deliver programs that will positively impact them. The purpose of audience research is to 
determine current awareness of waste minimization and management, identify effective 
programs, assess which communication tools would be effective and receive feedback on 
existing programs. Research can be as sophisticated as a large-scale survey done by an 
independent research company, or as infonnal as a verbal survey of callers to the recycling 
hotiine. 

2. Establish goals and objectives: Clear goals and objectives are essential to 3Rs 
education. Some examples of goals and objectives are: encourage manufacturers to design and 
manufacture pitxiucts and packaging that minimize waste, encourage waste minimizing 
purchasing habits, inform residents how to compost, teach people how to close the loop 
through purchase of recycled materials, etc. 

3. Develop formal communication plans: Solid waste managers should prepare formal 
communication plans to guide their education and promotion efforts. Such plans would 
describe goals, objectives, target audiences, core messages and details of specific programs (if 
available). These plans provide a framework fw the strategy. 

4. Target your audience: Education programs should be targeted to specific audiences. 
Although most education and promotion is geared towards the "general public", more effective 
campaigns are those that are targeted towards a specific audience. Some considerations to be 
made when targetting audiences are: 



•age 

• housing type 

• language 

• interest groups 

• cultural and religious affiliations 



gender 

location (rural vs. urban) 
ccHnmunity associations 
purchasing practices 



5. Select appropriate media: Based upon audience research and chosen target audience, 
an appropriate medium must be selected. Most strategies employ a selection of the following 
media: 



print 


visual and audio 


activities/events 


brochures 


radio ads 


tours 


newsletters 


television ads 


presentations 


flyers 


hotlines 


visits to households 


calendars 


info booths 


in-housc seminars 


newspaper ads 


displays 


workshops 


direct mail 


billboards 


school curriculum 


door hangers 


press events 


green shopper program 


error notices in blue boxes 


posters 


fairs 




videos 


contests 
committees 



Most waste managers tend to rely on print for the majority of their promotional and educational 
activities. Although print is generally the least expensive media, experience suggests that 
personal ctrntact is more effective in changing people's values and beliefs. 



May 1994 



PageB2-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



6. Coordinate efforts of participating organizations: Ongoing coordination between 
organizations responsible for education anid promotion programs should be conducted to give 
core messages greater strength and to increase program efficiencies. 

7. Foster public input and participation: Through participation in education activities, 
residents arc afforded the opportunity to "buy into" the waste management program and its 
goals. Through participatory events , such as conununity workshops, master composter 
program and tours of recycling facilities, people gain a sense of ownership and responsibility 
for their community's program, and are able to see tangible results of their efforts. Forums for 
public input and participation also provide an opportunity for feedback on existing and 
proposed programs, potentially making them more effective for the future. 

8. Allocate adequate funding: Most successful 3Rs programs spend in the range of $2-4 
per household per year on promotion and education activities. This budget item is not only 
essential to launch a program, but is required as an on-going expense because regular 
promotion and educaticm that improves the quality and quantity of recyclables and decreases the 
volume of solid waste requiring disposal. 

Limitations of a Promotion/Education Strategy 

The success of promotional and educational strategics are difficult to measure and there has 
been minimal effort expended by existing programs to determine their success level. As a 
result, it can be difRcult to secure funding for promotion and education programs and gauge the 
effectiveness of proposed and existing programs. Further to this, because of the relative youth 
of waste diversion programs in North America, there is little data available to determine which 
tools are the most appropriate for waste diversion promotion and education. 

References 

Cabaniss, A. and Theresa Walker, Recycling and Education: The Critical Link, World 
Wastes, February 1993. 

Greater Vancouver Regional District and British Columbia Environment, The ABC's of 
Promotions Planning: A Portfolio for Waste Management Co-ordinators, 1993. 

Olsen, Man K., Persuading the Public: Planning a Public Education Campaign That Works, 
MSW Management, October 1992. 

Minnesota Waste Education Coalition, Community Waste Education Manual, 1989. 



May 1994 PageB2-3 



Table B2-1 

Examples of Promotioii and Education Programs 

Foctt3sin( on 3Rs 



Region of Durhvn. ON 



MUNICIPAL WAirilJ 

REDlXniONAND 
RECYCUNQ PROGRAM 

Settle. WnliJiiKtoB 



CmSSDERHC'VmNU 

PROGRAM 
Vaicouver, SC 



coMMUNn-y 

V0LUNTCER5 
Boulder, Colorado 



MUNICIPAL WAJTIl^ 
REDUCnCMAND 
RECYCUNO PROGRAM 

Ceoire md South Haitiogi, 
ON 









r-lo-door delivery of 
brocbure 

at-home demonstraiions 
"problon' cards 



brocbum 

calendan 

newiletlcn 

public advertisements on radio 

wdTV 

brochure 
newtlellen 
municipal lu insert 
blue box envr iticken 
lelepbone hotline 
Bgitage on recycling trades 
tnnsit ihelier advertising 
tadioadi 
newipqierads 



securing nd mining of 
volunieen 



householder infomiaiion cod 

praWencard 

telephooe boiline 

video 

newspaper, radio and TV ads 

stickers 

door-to-door pnxnotion of 

backyard composting 

mall displays 

public talks 



brochure notified residents of the backyard composting ptugiaiu 

and included a business reply card for delivery of a free baocyard 

composter 

home delivery of composters by students that demonstTaied the 

'dos and don'ls" of backyard cmqnsting 

"problem cards" left in Blue Boxes that have been set out 

inconecUy. The cards acknowledge the residents' participation 



and Kive Ihcm detailed instructions on correct participation 
brochure topics include variable can rates, coniposting food and 



jtopics 

pet wastes, individual source reduction actions, pncycling, 
household hazardous waste, do's and don'ls of recycling, leaf 
collection program, etc. 



brochure explains how-ios of Blue Box program. Available 1n 
Vancouver's main Imguages 

bi-annual newsletter focuses on issues regarding waste reduction, 
upcoming programs and recognitian of past successes 



In each oeighbourtiood. a 'block leader' promotes the local 
recycling program. One person is responsible for promoting and 
educaing tfaor neighbouii on proper recycling procedures. This 
technique was patkularly successful in apartmem programs 
where there is a high turnover of tenants. The "block leader' 
assists new) 




ofTweekf, press rdeases. a launch cerenitny and preti ideaae kit 
houscboMer infonnatioa card provides detailed information on 
recyclables and bow to prepare them 
nroblem card explains incorrect recycling 
SOnninute video on recycling aired on local cable channel 
sdckers to promote the recycling program 
backyMdcom p oa l ing w o g ram is promoted by a number of staff 
that go door-to-docr ffiscussing composting widi lesidenu and 
offering free comwaicrt. 



composters 
diversion rate through 
badcyard composters is 
estiinated to be 
256 kgAinit/year 



dieir aggressive and diverse 
canqxu^ cosu between $3 and 
$4 per bousehok) per year 



estimated 83% paiticipaiian 
diversion of 12% of smgle- 
family solid waste 



studies have shown that this 
approach can increase 
participation by 65% 



higb monthly partictpaiion rate 
(83%) tat recycling program : 
4S0nM/bhldAr 
diverticti of 33% 
70% of households contacted 
by compost stilf took a 
composter. The cost of this 
p i ogiau i, induding mdls, 
diftribulioii, advatiting and 
education JaeSaOAimt 



^ 



li 



1 
^.1 



3.? 

si 

II 



I 

I 






PROMOnONAND 
EDUCATION PROGRAM 

Qmia Vancouver RegloiBl 
DisricuBC 



COMMUNrrVWOUKitUOP 

Muvflle-Keiiyciii,ON 



MUNICIPAL OUUANI^ 

PROGRAM 

PoitColbonie,ON 



fn^poft pragnms 
oommmiity ouireach Ktiviiics 
icfaoolf edncaboa progtim 
IC&I education programs 
ooniposiing programs 



"^ ooaimunity ■ource reduction 

woriahop 
• foUow-up (urvey 



Mghbouiliooil vdunieCT 
"Mockleadoa" 
emptoymem of 'Compost 
Docion' 
schools nogiim 
Ughly vltiMe promotional 
canfMign 

pramodoQ through schools, 
land local 



service gnnps 

oonipotf bouiiie 

dispuws at summer events and 

local fanners' mutet 

door-to-door canvassing for 

backyaidcoaiposien 

door hmgen, brodnires, flyers, 

etc 

newspaper advertiaeinents 

posien 



■uppQtt to municipal solid waAe programs indiHles a 
recycling coonUnalar networking, promoiioa of municipal 
programs dot occur in membCT municipalities. Compost Netwotic 
for organizations involved in the promotion of composting, and a 
Waste Reduction Fonun for individuals and organizations to 
interface 

community outreach activities include: Talking Yellow Pages (for 
information oo programs within the OVRD), Oirisinus Tree 
Recycling promotion. Telephone Book colleciioQ. 3Rs library 
displays, community special event guide, radio campaign, and 
poiticipation in special events 

ICftI programs indude waste reduction kits and worlcsbops 
composting is supnoned by a regional compost demanstntion 
garden, a ooomostlng neiwoik. partial fiuiding erf a composting 



hotline and the devctoproqit of a 'Master Comoo«ier"progaiii 
25 famiUca attended « source reduction workshop designed to 



leadb them how 10 reduce waste. Panidparits were asked to 
nxmitarnd record their waste before and aAei dK workshop 
a yev later, a follow-up survey was conducted to determine if the 
education remained enecdve 



oeighbourliood voiumeer "block leaderT 

empkiymail of "Compost Doctors" 

tcniWii pvocrtm 

highly vuiMe praootiondxampaign 

pnmolioa through scfaods, summer camps and local service 

groups 

c o mpost hotline 

displayt at sumner evenli and local farmen' market 

door-to-door canvBSsiiig for backyard coniposiers 

door hangers, brothi ie i , flyers, etc. 

newspaper advertisements 

posters 



on avetage, dry waste reduced 
by 34% ttnmgh shopping and 
behaviounl changes, and wet 
watte was reduced 1^ 66% 
through buckvatd composting 
a year laier, the survey 
indicated Aat most families 
mainiained a 50% reduction 

level 

gl« or households were 
visited legaiding backyard 
composwr, and 12% of those 
households accepted a 
compotlcr 



Sources: 

compost Maiagemem and Associ«es, Earth WoHcs Inurim Report, City of Port Colbome, November 1993. 

Ftrsoiial communication with Walker. M. Recycling Co-ordinator for Vancouver. March 1994. 

Personal communication with Miilnch. A., Recycling Co-ordinaior for Centre and South Hastings. March 1994. 

Resource hiteiration Systems. Waste Pivcwiwi Ptannint Workshop, 1993. . 



i 



? 



ii 



I 

I 






I 



I 






Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE B-3 — LEAF AND YARD WASTE MANAGEMENT 

General 

Leaf and yard waste comprises approximately 16% to 34% of the residential waste stream 
(G&S, 1991 and 1992; W.R. Beck, 1992; Centre & South Hastings. 1993; Guelph, 1990). 
Materials include: leaves, grass, weeds, plant cuttings, twigs, hedge trimmings and branches. 

Leaf and yard wastes are an obvious target for waste diversion programs because they 
represent a significant portion of the waste stream that is, by nature, already source 
segregated. In addition, the processed product of leaf and yaid waste is a usable and often 
valuable product. 

Another advantage of yard waste programs is the removal of grass from refuse collection, 
which because of noxious odours produced in its decomposition, is considered a hazard to 
refuse collectors and processors. 

The percentage of yard waste in the municipal waste stream varies by jurisdiction due to 
geographical location (the longer the growing season the greater the percentage of yard waste 
in the waste stream) and the type of community (rural residents are more likely to deal with 
their yard wastes on-site than their urban counterparts). 

Yard waste also has seasonal variations which must be accounted for in the development of 
leaf and yard waste programs. In the spring, the main yard wastes are brush, grass and some 
leaves. The summer sees mostly grass and brush. The autumn brings the leaves, along with 
some brush and grass. During the winter, the main "yard waste" is Christmas trees. 

There are a number of ways in which leaf and yard wastes can be diverted from the waste 
stream, including, 

• landfill bans 

• grasscycling and mulching 

• collection for centralized processing 

• xeriscaping 

• backyard composting 

All of the above yard waste management methods are discussed in this section, with the 
exception of backyard composting, which is described in detail in Schedule C. Table B3-1 
presents a brief description of a range of leaf and yard waste collection programmes. 

Landflll Bans 

Banning leaf and yard wastes fipom landfills can be an effective tool to promote reduction and 
at-home management by making it more difficult, costly or impossible to dispose of these 
materials. Bans can also provide support to existing programs aimed at collection and 
processing of leaf and yard wastes. 

Bans are becoming more common as governments become more aware of their limited 
landfill capacities. In Ontario, the responsibility for establishing material bans at landfills or 
transfer stations has been placed on regional municipalities. An estimated 30 municipalities 
have initiated landfill bans and/or collection bans of organic materials (Varangu, AMRC). 
Many municipalities arc implementing by-laws and disposal bans as a method to both diven 
waste and save money. In the U.S., a total of 21 states had implemented some form of 
landfill ban on yard waste as of October 1993 (Todorovich, 1993). 

May 1994 Page B3-I 



* 

^ 



Table B3-1 
Summary Information on Selected Leaf and Yard Waste Programs 



r.^::.^ rtdg^Utl '-^p 


M»Url«l* 
Collecttd 


Dtscrlptloii 


Data 


:■ ■■■ NotM:;:- 


Curhside Plastic 
Bag Program 

Omaha, Nebraska 


• commingled 
leaves, grass and 
brush 


• curbside colJeclion of yard waste in 
any (ype of plastic bag is collected 
weekly between April i and 
November 30, using onc-pcrson 
sidL-l(>.Kter vehicles 

• bags iirc broken open al the 
composting site by the windrow 
turner, and are remt)ved manually 

• end priHJucl used as landfill cover 


■ vehicle does 500 stops per day 

• the contacted col lector is paid 
$45.30/i(mne 

• the compost site charges die 
collector .S24 fiO/ionne lipping 
fee 

• diversion ol 145 kg of yard 
waste per household per year 

• 14% diversion of residential 
wasie stream in l'W2 

• 9[)9c participation 


• pilot program used rollout 
cans and bimlegradablc plastic 
bags. Use ol carts 
discontinued because ol cosi 
and capacity limits. 
[X'gradabic bags discontimied 
because they did not degrade 
properly at the compost site 

• implementing yard waste ban 
by .September 1994 


Curbsidc Paper Bag 
Program 

Vancouver, DC 


• leaves 


• residents purchase kra/t paper bags 
from local reliiilers (5 bags for 

• curbsidc collecuon is done by 
municipid rear packers. Irucks 
pass by each household 
approximately every 4 days 

• leaves can also be dropped off, 
loose or bagged, at the City's 
transfer station or landnii 

■ program operates from (Xiober to 
[December 

• end prtxlucl is used in municipal 
applications or sold to local 
landscapcTS and sod manufacturers 


• in 1992, 5()00 tonnes of 
laivcs were divened 

• 

* 


• C'iiy is planning to do a full- 
scale yard waste collection 
pnigram in the near future 



D 

*3 

Co 



i. 



3$ 






1^ 



'S5 



Fn$.t»ao 



Curbsldc Paper Bag 
Program 

llrbana. Illinois 



Curbside with 
Various Containers 
(75 L plastic 
containers, 110 I. 
kraft paper bags, or 
NOVON polymer 
bags) 
lladdonneld. New Jersey 






c(Hiiiningled 
leaves and grass 
brush (bundled) 



commingled 
grass, leaves, 
small brush and 
garden irinunings 



Oeacriptlon 



kraft paper hags used for collection 

of leaves and grass; brush is 

bundled. Bags are purchased by 

householder 

weekly collection from March to 

November using Iwo-pcrsoti rear 

packer trucks 

bags are open primarily by Uie 

windrow turner 

bags biodegrade in 4-6 weeks in 

windrows 

end product is used in City parks 

and sold to private citizens and 

landscapers for $10 per cubic metre 



weekly curbside collection of yard 

waste done on same day as refuse 

rcsUlenLS can ch<K)se their preferred 

conlaiiKr 

containers purchased by residents at 

2 retail outlets ($1.35 for NOVON 

bag, $0.75 for kraft bag and 

$15.00 for plastic container) 

collection is done by 2 pcrsim rear 

packer trucks 

no debagging is required 

program promo includes a flyer and 

ads in local newspaper and 

newsletter 



Data 



estimated that waste collected 
is 50% brush, 35% leaves and 
15% grass by weight 
collection contractor paid 
S 16.50 per compacted cubic 
meue (@S40/tonne) 
priiccssing cosi.s esiiinaied to 
be $25/ionne 

2,090 tonnes of yard waste 
diverted in 1992 (1350 tonnes 
Irom residents) 
110 kg of yard waste is 
collected per household/yr 
achieved 10% diversion of yard 
wasic __^ 



65% of re.sidentiaJ yard waste 

being diverted 

participation estimated ai 80- 

<X)% 

private cojnposiing site has a 

S30/tonne Up fee 



f^Notftl:;: 



state- wide ban on yard waste at 

landfills 

yard waste is second largest 

component of the waste 

stream 

program origiiially used 

plastic bags 

kraft bags cost S0.45 ea. when 

purchased in batches of 30,000 



NOVON polymer bags break 
down quickly in compost piles 
no residue in end product 



I. 

i 

II 

Q 

** 5. 



^1 



■'t; 



Fiwfn 






D^tcrlpOoK 



Dnut 



Nau* 



Curbsidc PImIIc 
Rollout Cart 
Program 

Municipality of 
Lunenberg, Nova Scolla 
(including Towns of 
Bridgewaler, Lunenberg 
and Mahone Bay) 



all organic yard 
waste 



in a pilot project, residents 
provided with a 240 L rollout cart 
for collection of kitchen and yaid 
organics 

colleclion done weekly in urban 
areas and bi-weekly in rural areas 
by a private hauler using standard 
rear packers modified with 
hydraulic lifting devices 
composting done in windrows at 
local incinerator/landfill site 
promotion and education includes 
letters sent to residents prior to 
implcmcnialion, news releases, 
workshops and follow-up letters 



30% (79 tonnes) diveision of 

residential waste stream 

achieved through colleclion of 

yard waste (23%) and 

recyclables (7%) 

less than 2% contamination in 

cans 



a program for collection of 
recyclables in blue bags was 
implemented at the same lime 



Yard Wasic Drop- 
ofT Program 

Richmond, BC 



oommingled yard 
waste 



residents drop off yard waste at a 
number of drop-off depots or at the 
private composting site free-of- 
charge 

the City contracts haulers to 
transfer the waste from drop-off 
depots 10 the composting site 
the private composting operation 
is reimbursed by the City based on 
the volume of waste received 



produces approximately I.OCIO 
tonnes per year of finished 
compost 






■^ 5 



Grasscycllng 

Waterloo Region 



grass 



extensive promotion and education 
program, including information 
pamphlet delivered to each 
residence, radio ads, newspaper 
articles, signs on colleclion 
vehicles. Cable TV show, 
"problem identification tags" for 
bags containing grass left at curb 



estimated savings between 

$25,000 to $80,000 on 

tipping fees 

estimated 500-975 tonnes 

diverted annually 

cost of $1 per household for 

pranotion and education 

program 



Started in 1991 

conducted 3 pilot programs to 

discover the most effective 

way to divert yard waste from 

landfill 

City implemented leaf and 

grass clipping collection ban 

after pilots 

plan to ban all yard waste 

from landfill by 1994 



B. 



1 



I 



I 



-r^-mim^mmm 


M*t*ri*l» 


::--:^-::;i^«iil»l«^^^^ ^^1^^^:":^ 


T}»tB 


m-m''^'m^m^mmm 


■ ^,:l ,:; i::,;.;:.:;:;:;;:;^::::;:::^::^:::;^:;:;::^:;:;;;;::;;::;^^ 


C«IU«tt4l 


;::;::;. .:; . SjijSgiillSSiSjiiiiiiSS v^^ 






Grasscycling 


• grass 


• the "Don't Bag It" lawn care 


• cost savings lo City of $3,500 




Greenfield, Wisconsin 


i. 


campaign was implemented in 
1992 ip reduce yard waste 

• 1 ,3-SO homeowners pledged no to 
bag grass clippings 

• 52 rcsiJcnis were provided wilh 
Tore mulching lawnmowers for 
the duration of the projeci(summer 
of '92) 

• promotion and education included 
direct-mail brochures and 
opportunity for participants lo win 
prizes 


for 1992 season 
• 90 lonnes of grass diverted 


, 


Drop -Off for Grass 


• leaves (cotlecled 


• 5 drop-off depots (6x6' enc losu res ) 


• 210 lonnes (730 cum) of 


• the purpose of drop-off for 


Waste 


cuitoside) 


for loose grass located in city 


grass clippings diverted in 


grass is to provide an 


Slale College Borough. 


• grass (collecled in 


parks, 


1991 


aJtemative to residents that 


Pennsylvania 


drop-offs) 


• promoting backyard composting 


• capital and operating costs 


isn't as convenient as 


■ 


• grasscycling 


and grasscycling 


estimated at $ i . 10 per capita 


grasscycling 






• drop-offs serviced by City's 2- 


• each drop-off cost $520 to 


• leaves are picked up at 






person vacuum truck on a daily 


build 


curbside using a vacuum truck 






basis 










• operates April - October 




. 






• grass is composted along with 


_ 








collected leaves 


• 








• end prtxJuct is used in municipal 










flower beds and tree planting, and 










placed at drop-off sites for public 


i' 








pick up 










Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis- Service Technical Appendix 



LandnU bans can be easily enforced at the point of collection and at the landfill. The 
disadvantage of landfill bans is the increased tendency of generators to dump leaf and yard 
waste illegally (into bodies of water, onto the streets or into private refuse bins). 

Before implementing disposal bans, systems must be in place to manage the materials to be 
banned. Residents must have the tools and know-how to react positively to yard waste bans. 
This includes educational material on at-home management options (backyard composting, 
grasscycling, mulching, xeriscaping) and access to collection programs for materials that 
cannot be managed at-home (woody waste, large volumes of leaves and grass). 

Generally, a phase-in period is provided between ban implementation and enforcement. That 
is, in die stan-up phase of the ban, warnings arc given and more time is taken to ensure that 
residents are fully aware of the ban's restrictions and alternatives. 

The City of OakviUe estimates that it costs approximately $500,(XX) annually to collect grass 
clippings. In an effort to eliminate this operating cost and increase waste diversion, the Clity 
passed a by-law in June 1992 to ban the collection of grass clippings effective April 1, 1993. 
Grass clippings cannot be processed at Halton's composting facihty due to restrictions 
imposed by the operating Certificate of Approval. Furthermore, there are concerns that lawn 
pesticides and herbicides may contaminate the compost product. (Jones, 1993) 

Other Ontario municipalities such as Kingston, Waterloo and Ottawa have invoked similar 
bans on the collection of grass clippings. Unlike these communities, however, the City of 
OakviUe decided not to provide grass collection depots for use by residents. This approach 
places the onus on the resident to deal direcdy with their yard waste. City staff hope this 
action will motivate residents to begin backyard composting, to mulch grass and leave it on 
the lawn, or switch to alternative landscaping techniques, such as xeriscaping. (Jones, 1993) 

Grasscycling and Mulching 

The process of mulching and grasscycling requires that residents leave their organic yard 
wastes, such as grass and leaves, on the ground for decomjjosition, rather than collect them 
up for disposal or composting purposes. This natural process whereby soil microorganisms 
are responsible for the decomposition and processing of yard wastes into organic matter, 
eliminates the need for the resident or the municipality to "manage" the waste materials. 

Grasscychng refers to simply leaving grass clippings on the lawn. If done properly, this 
practice does not degrade lawn quality, as is conunonly believed. Proper grasscycling 
requires the resident to; mow the grass frequentiy with a sharp bladed mower, mow the grass 
when dry, and mow the grass to a height of approximately 4 cm. If the cuttings result in a 
thick cover (over half an inch), the lawn requires holes to be punched in to allow the cut grass 
to fall through. 

Leaves can be mulched, as well. The leaves require chopping, best done by a lawnmower. 
Chopped leaves can be left to winter on the garden or the lawn, spread to a thickness no 
greater than 6-8 inches. 

Municipal governments can contribute to this waste management option by educating 
residents about the benefits of mulching and the how to do it, and following up the education 
with regular promotion. 



May 1994 Page B3-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Ajialysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Municipalities can also facilitate on-site management of yard waste by providing residents 
with a mulching service. Mulching can be done at a centralized area to which residents bring 
their yard waste to be mulched and then take the mulch back home, or a small mule her can 
visit a neighbourhood on a regular basis to provide a mulching service for materials left at 
curbside (leaving the residents with the mulch). 

Mulching of collected yard waste is often done by municipalities as a volume reduction 
method. Quite often this is done in the case of Christmas tree collections - the mulched trees 
can be offered to residents as free mulch, used in municipal applications as a mulch, or 
disposed of in a landfill (mulch has a significantly less volume than do full trees). 

Collection for Centralized Processing 

Collection of leaf and yard waste for centralized processing requires consideration of the type 
of collection vehicle and how the material is to be contained prior to collection. 

Collection options include drop-off depots and curbside collection. There are a number of 
issues to consider when planning a yard waste collection program : 

• participation levels; on a monthly basis, a typical drop-off location receives 2% 
to 25% participation, a curbside program receives 50% - 90% participation; 

• cost of collection; drop-offs cost $5 to $35 per ton, curbside costs $35 to $90 per 
ton; 

• generation levels; generation is affected by lot size, age of neighbourhood, 
housing density and type, and income level; 

• variability of weather; volumes are greatly affected by weather - a year of 
unusual cold, wami, precipitation or wind can affect projected volumes and 
budget requirements ; 

• materials collected; the range of potential target materials for collection include 
grass, leaves, clippings and larger brush. All or any of these materials can be 
collected in a variety of combinations - this decision is affected by the level of 
waste diversion and the quality of end product desired; 

• level of collection; year-round or seasonal. 

A drop-off depot is the least expensive option but with the lowest recovery levels (2% to 5% 
for periodic events and 10% to 25% for permanent sites) and participation is generally 
limited to those people with vehicles. Contamination is often higher than in curbside 
collection programs and there is potential for odour problems at unstaffed locations. 
However, many municipalities implement drop-off depots as an interim measure before 
going to a full-scale curbside program. 

For curbside collection, the option of whether to collect the material in containers or loose 
must be considered. The form of collection is often determined by the type of existing 
equipment. 

Collection of loose material is less expensive than for containerized collection (due to cost of 
containers) and contaminants are more visible. The disadvantages of loose collection are that 
it is more labour intensive, it often experiences difficulty with cars parked on the road, and 
that contamination from the street (dirt, stones) is inevitable. 

Vehicles used for collection of loose material include mechanical scoops and vacuum 
machines. Mechanical scoops are generally attached to the front end loader or skid steer 
loader. There is a self-contained unit with a series of paddles to scoop up material onto a 
conveyor which empties into a dump truck. Vacuum machines are primarily used for leaf 

May 1994 PageB3-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



collection and are not appropriate for grass collection. In addition, some vacuums do not 
work well on wet materials. 

Collection of materials that are containerized has the advantages of easier loading, minimal 
curb/street mess and provides the program with some visible identity. The disadvantages of 
containerized programs are that they are more costly (for the residents and/or municipality), 
may require debagging equipment, are restricted to the size of the container, and 
contaminants are not as visible. 

A number of container options arc available; the main ones are plastic bins, plastic bags, kraft 
paper bags and degradable plastic bags. 

Bins are durable and mobile, although they are the most restrictive in terms of capacity. For 
example, plastic bins generally cannot hold all the leaves generated in a fall raking session. 
The cost of these containers for single-family residences can vary from $10 for a standard 
plastic trash can to $75 for a 90 gallon semi-automated wheeled container. 

Bags can accommodate varying volumes of material. In addition, they are more easily stored 
than plastic bins and are less expensive in the short term. 

Plastic bags are an inexpensive option for collection ($.08- $0.10 ea.), but require removal at 
some point during the waste management piocess. Debagging can occur on the truck, before 
composting or after composting. The most popular plastic organics collection bags are see- 
through to allow collectors to see contaminants. Generally, when plastic bags are used for 
collection, some plastic remains in the final product, thereby reducing its marketability. 

Degradable plastic bags have been used in some organics collection programs as a means to 
overcome the need for debagging. Although these bags are less expensive than kraft paper 
bags ($0.15 - $0.21 ea.), they generally do not decompose at the same rate as the yard waste 
and leave some quantity of plastic in the final product. There is little data available on the 
environmental effects of de^adable plastic on compost quality. 

Kraft paper bags can be shredded and composted along with their contents, thus not requiring 
any debagging. Kraft paper bags generally have a high degree of wet strength and can 
withstand some precipitation. Kraft bags however, are the most expensive of the bag options 
(from $0.25 to $0.75 each), will deteriorate after heavy dose of precipitation and do not allow 
the collector to readily see contamination. The Cities of Seattle and Vancouver have 
switched from using plastic bags to kraft bags in their leaf collection programs in recent years 
as a result of cost savings during collection and processing, and to increase the value of the 
composted material. (Biocycle, Sept. 1993 and Walker, 1994) 

Collected leaf and yard waste is generally composted in a centralized location. 

Xeriscaping 

Xeriscaping is a method of landscaping/gardening that maximizes the use of perennial, and 
preferably native plants in order to reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides and herbicides, 
conserve water and minimize maintenance activities such as mowing. (MOEE brochure, 
1993) Increasingly, communities have begun to promote xeriscaping activities at the 
residential and institutional level. 

The Evergreen Foundation reports that in North America an estimated 40 million 
lawnmowcrs consume 200 million gallons of gasoline annually and that lawn owners 
consume one-sixth of all commercial fertilizers. Furthermore, it is estimated that up to 75% 

May 1994 ' ' PageB3-8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



of the costs associated with lawn maintenance could be saved by switching to more 
ecologically sound landscapes. (Vaughan, 1992) 

In traditional xeriscaping, residential perennial gaidens replace lawn landscapes. However, 
other environmentally beneficial landscaping and gardening activities are gaining popularity 
as well, including rooftop gardening, backyard vegetable gardens, native plant gardens in 
parks, low maintenance landscaping in parks and parkenes, and community garden plots. 

Some Ontario municipalities have begun promoting xeriscaping and alternative landscaping. 
In the summer of 1993, the municipality of North York eliminated the use of pesticides and 
herbicides on parks and municipal properties (with the exception of playing fields) in an 
attempt to move towards a more natural landscape. Elsewhere in Metropolitan Toronto, 
experiments to transform parks (or portions of parks) and other municipal grounds to natural, 
low maintenance, self sustaining landscapes are underway. 

Promotion and Education 

As with all waste management options that require the participation of residents, regular and 
effective promotion and education is key to the program's success. Some examples of 
pronwtionat and educational materials for leaf and yard waste programs arc: 

• brochures explaining at-home options for managing leaf and yard waste; 

• notices in tax billings (tips for lawn maintenance, announcement of fall leaf pick 
up program, recognition of past success in diverting leaf and yard wastes, etc.); 

• compost hotiines; to provide advice on grasscycling and mulching, to inform 
residents of municipal programs for leaf and yard waste, etc.; 

• newspaper advertisements; announcements and reminders of municipal programs 
(e.g. Quistmas Tree Chipping Program, Fall Leaf Collection, Grass Banned from 
Disposal, etc.); 

printing on leaif collection bags (promotes program when bags are on at curbside); 
signage on collection vehicles; 
billboards and transit ads; 
presentations to schools and community groups; 
utilizing volunteers to train their neighbours and "spread the word"; 
television and radio advertising; 
press releases; 
demonstration sites (in local parks or municipal properties). 

Although print media has historically been the education and promotion forum of choice for 
most waste management programs due to its relative low costs, experience suggests that 
nonprint media, particularly those that involve direct, one-on-one conmiunication and 
participation, are most effective. 

End Uses for Processed Yard Waste 

The end product of yard waste collection and processing programs can take a number of 
forms depending on the degree of source separation of materials and the degree of 
processing. 

Woody wastes, such as tree trimming and other brush can be chipped and used as mulch (in 
municipal applications such as parks and municipal greenhouses), or added to compost heaps 
(windrows) to assist in aerating the pile. 



May 1994 PageB3-9 



Ministry cf Enviroiunent and Energy 
CTA 3Rs AiuUysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Other yards waste, such as leaves, grass and mixed yard waste are typically composited. The 
composting process, which biologically breaks down the organic matter, can vary 
dramatically depending on the type of materials included and the degree to which the 
material has been allowed to compost. For example, collection and processing of clean leaf 
waste to a point where the material is completely cured, ground and screened will result in a 
high quality soil amendment that can be bagged and sold commercially. The following list 
indicates, from high value to low value, end uses for processed yard waste: 

• clean soil amendment (sold to private compost manufacturer); 

• bulk product for landscapers; 

• bulk product for use in municipal applications such as parks and roadside 
gardening; 

• return to residents for gardening purposes (often at community events where 
residents can pick up leaf compost for free, or as pan of a fundraising event); 

• landfill cover, 

• disposal in landfill (volume reduction only). ' 

The range of end uses noted above provides an outlet for all collected leaf and yard wastes. 

References 

Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators (AMRC), 1993. AMRC Leaf and Yard 
Waste Composting S/udfy, April, 1993 

BioCycle, 1993. Which System Works Best for Collecting Yard Trimmings?, BioCycle, 
September, 1993 

City of Guelph. November 1990. City of Guelph Wet/Dry Pilot Project. 

Gore and Storrie Ltd. 1991. Residential Waste Composition Study. Volume I of the Ontario 
Waste Composition Study. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 

Gore and Storrie Ltd. 1992. Waste Composition Study for the Township and City of 
Kingston. 

Jones, Mark, 1993. Personal communications with Mark Jones, City of Oakville, May 1993 

Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 1993. The Xeroscape Garden (brochure). 

Ministry Of Environment and Energy, Waste Reduction Office, 1994. Municipal 3Rs 
Infrastructure: A Reference Guide, International Case Studies. January 1994 

Quinte Regional Recycling. 1992. Blue Box 2000: Interim Report. Quinte, September, 1992 

RIS, 1992. Illinois Recycling Coordinators' Training Program. 1993 

RIS, 1993. Waste Diversion Planning Workshop Participant's Manual. 1993 

RIS, 1994, Community 3Rs Workshop Participant's Manual. 1994 

R.W. Beck and Associates, Stanley Industrial Consultants, and DSM Environmental 
Services. 1992. Waste Composition Study in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa- 
Carleton. Description of Waste Stream and Program Implications. Prepared for the 
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carlcton. 

May 1994 PageB3-10 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA JJ?J Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Todorovich, 1993. "If They Ban It Will It Go Away?" Waste Age, October, 1993 

Vaughan, Colin, 1992. "Evergreen Foundation combats lawn m&ma.."Globe and Mail., 
August 23, 1992 

Varangu, Linda. May 1993. Personal communications with L. Varangu, Association of 
Municipal Recycling Co-ordinators 

Walker, M. 1994, Personal Communication with M. Walker, March, 1994 



May 1994 Page B 3-11 



Mirustry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE B-4 — MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE RECYCLING 
Introduction 

The diversity of multi-unit residences such as apartments, townhouse complexes, 
condominiums and cooperatives, represents a unique challenge to recycling program 
designers and operators. Consider the differing needs of a downtown high rise versus the 
need of a suburban townhouse complex. The building design and management of multi-unit 
residences such as these requires a variety of systems and approaches to both implementation 
and operation. 

The challenge is further increased when the garbage removal system of multi-unit residences 
is taken into account. Because garbage removal is typically contracted privately, the garbage 
containers, service level and collection system vary from building to building. 

Many multi-unit residences have historically participated in recycling programs on a 
building-wide scale as the result of a desire to reduce waste disposal costs or because of 
tenant demand. Now, however, the provincial waste management act requires that all 
residential buildings (with 6 or more units) put a recycling in program in place and the 
municipality must provide collection services to all these buildings. The challenge to have a 
successful recycling program for multi-unit residences is now faced by all municipalities, 
building owners and building managers. 

Program design 

The type of collection program implemented in a multi-unit residence generally depends 
upon the size of the building . For smaller buildings, the inclusion of their recyclables in the 
curbside Blue Box program is usually the most effective system. For larger buildings,^ a 
centralized area for the collection of recyclables is put in place and residents are generally 
required to bring their recyclables to this central point. This type of collection program will 
be the focus of this section. 

Small Buildings (less than 10 units) 

Residential buildings with less than ten units can usually be serviced through a curbside Blue 
Box program where the Blue Boxes arc placed at curbside for municipal collection and are 
collected by the same vehicles that service the single-family homes. 

There are two primary manners in which residents participate in a program of this type. In 
the first manner, each unit in the building is given a Blue Box in which they first place their 
recyclables and later bring die box to the curt), such that they are treated much like a single 
family resident. In the second manner, a number of blue boxes are placed in a central area 
into which residents can place their recyclables. These communal boxes are then placed on 
the curb by a building superintendent or designated resident. In the instance of a centralized 
collection area for recyclables, the issue of whether or not to have an in-unit collection 
container (e.g. a blue bag) must be decided. 

The choice between these two in-building collection options can be dictated by the refuse 
collection system in place. That is, if residents are responsible for bringing their own 
garbage to the curb, then they are apt to prefer their own individual blue boxes. Similarly, if 
tiiey bnag their garbage to a central collection bin, they would likely feel more comfortable 
with bringing their recyclables to a central area. 



May 1994 PageB4-l 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3fis Analysis - Service Tecfmical Append 



Medium and Large Buildings 

In multi-unit residential buildings there are a large number of considerations in the design of 
the internal collection of recyclables (moving recyclables from the individual residents' units 
to the central collection area) and the external collection of recyclables (the movement of 
recyclables from the central area to the collection vehicle). In all cases, the level of 
commitment and cooperation of the building managers and owners will reflect on the success 
of the program. 

Internal Collection: The most popular type of internal collection program requires individual 
residents to bring their recyclables, often in a mini Blue Box or Blue Bag, to a central 
collection area. The resident is also required to sort out their recyclables according to what 
material goes into which collection container. Depending on space availability, the collection 
area can be located in the same area as garbage is collected (eg. chute room) or in an area 
where space allows for the placement of recycling containers (eg. back alley, parking garage, 
storage room). In rare instances, the building superintendent will take on the responsibility 
of bringing the residents' recyclables to the central collection point. 

The provision of in-house collection containers, such as bags or boxes is not essential to a 
multi-unit program. However, the City of Toronto found a 39% increase in panicipation 
after distribution of Blue Bags to their apartment residents. If not possible to have a decUcated 
container, residents often use grocery bags or cardboard boxes to transport their materials to 
the central collection containers. 

External Collection: When designing the central collection area, there are conisiderations 
such as the collection vehicle, type of containers, fire regulations, space availability and 
convenience to residents. 

The collection vehicle is probably the most important design consideration. How a collection 
vehicle is compartmentalized will determine what materials are collected and how they are 
sorted at the central area. Its dimensions (width, height and turning radius) will impact on 
the placement of the containers or if the containers will have to be moved in order to be 
picked up by the vehicle. The vehicle's level of automation will reflect upon the type of 
central collection containers used. 

There are a variety of collection containers available. The choice of containers will greatiy 
depend upon the space limitations of the building, the number of residents serviced by the 
containers, and, as mentioned above, the collection vehicle. The most popular containers in 
use by multi-unit program are plastic carts, (@90 gallon capacity) often called toters, and 
bulk lift containers (2-3 cu. yd.). 

Toters are wheeled semi-automatic collection carts with lids that can be serviced by rear 
packers, side loaders, or front-end loaders fitted with the appropriate lift kits. The container 
is tall and narrow so that it fits in limited floor space and can be moved easily. The bulk lift 
containers are lidded steel containers on canisters so they can be moved. They are 
serviceable by a front end loader. 

Other containers that may be appropriate for centralized collection include garbage cans and 
steel drums (more applicable to small to mid-size buildings), Igloos and compartmentalized 
roll-off containers. 

Fire regulations will also influence the choice of collection container. Fire codes may require 
that the containers have lids, arc non-flammable, are accessible to fire fighting vehicles, and 
that their placement does not pose a fur or safety hazard. 

May 1994 Page 84-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Space limitations are liltcly to pose difficulty to many buildings. Because most buildings 
were not designed for recycling, the set-up of a recycling program often requires the sacrifice 
of space used for another purpose, such as parking spaces and storage space. 

The central collection area must be conveniently located to ensure maximum participation. 
Convenience requires that the area be in a regular path (eg. on the way to the car or laundry 
room) and be regarded as safe (well lit and secure). The location must also take into account 
the type of residents within the building. For example, if the building is primarily occupied 
by seniors or other people with physical limitations, their limitations must be incorporated 
into the program design to ensure participation. 

Maintenance of the central collection area will also be a key factor in participation. The area 
should be maintained to ensure that the area is safe, aesthetically pleasing to the residents, not 
attracting pests and odour-free. 

Promotion and Education 

Promotion and education are essential to the development of a recycling program and to the 
program's on-going maintenance. This is never more true than for programs in multi-unit 
residences. 

The greatest barrier to promotion and education efforts is the transitory nature of apartment 
residents. They arc often single, young and highly mobile, such that the gains of a building's 
recycling program promotion and education arc depleted whenever a tenant moves out. As a 
result, promotion and education efforts must be more intensive and frequent than efforts done 
for single-family residences. 

There are two focus points for promotion and education: in the conmiunity (to encourage 
multi-family residences to set-up a recycling program) and within the building (to encourage 
correct participation in an existing program). 

Community pronation of recycling is often geared towards building owners and managers as 
they are key to the set-up of a program in their building. If they arc not convinced that the 
program has real advantages, the program will never launch or survive. Some examples of 
community promotion and education are advertisements in newspapers, trade magazines and 
radio. 

Promotion and education within the participating building is intended to increase awareness 
that the program exists, increase participation and improve the quality of the recyclables 
collected. Some forms of building promotion and education are: 

posters announcing the program launch; 
door hangers announcing the launch; 
kick-off meetings; 

brochures detailing the program and how to participate; 

in-home collection containers, such as Blue Bags, to act as an initial incentive and 
serve as a reminder, 
signage in the central collection area; 
signage on the central collection bins; 

contamination notices on the central bins, indicating any contamination noted 
during the last week; 
• follow-up letters congratulating residents on their successes. 

May 1994 PageB4-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Promotion and education efforts must also take into account the nature of the residents. That 
is, efforts must take into consideration multi-lingualism and illiteracy. 

Issues 

There are a number of issues that must be addressed in the development of a multi-unit 
residential recycling program. The issues of contamination, measurability and the impact on 
private haulers are briefly discussed here. 

Contamination: The contamination level of the recyclables is much higher in multi-unit, 
centrally-collected programs, than in curbside Blue Box programs. This contamination 
results in from cross contamination (participants inadvertently placing the materials in the 
wrong bin; eg. putting brown glass in the clear glass bin), improper participation (placing 
non-recyclable materials in the collection container; eg. placing plastic toys in the plastic 
bottles, bin), and access to the bin by non-residents ^ople unaware or uncaring of the 
program's requirements). 

Because the materials are generally collected in a bulk fashion, there is little opportunity to 
review the materials for contamination prior to having them emptied into the collection 
vehicle. This problem can be somewhat alleviated if there is on-site monitoring of the bins; 
that is, someone who will check the bins regularly and pull out any visible contamination. 

Finding the source of the contamination is the nx>re difficult problem. Because all residents 
in the building have access to the program, it can be impossible to determine the 
contamination culprit. The most effective means to tackle this issue is clear and regular 
communications with all residents. 

Measurability : It is can be difficult to quantify the impact of multi-unit recycling programs. 
In larger buildings, determining participation level can be almost impossible. In small 
buildings, the addition of their recyclables to the curbside collection program makes it 
impossible to determine how much of the collected material comes from multi-unit versus 
single family homes. 

Haulers : When a municipality begins to operate a service for collection of recyclables fix)m 
multi-unit residences, they often tread on territory that has traditionally belonged to privately 
contracted haulers. Municipalities must be sensitive to the threat of potential loss of business 
to the private garbage haulers, as waste levels will decrease and the opportunities to provide a 
private recycling services are reduced. 

Case Studies , 

Table B4-1 outlines a variety of multi-unit residential recycling programs and demonstrates 
the main types of collection programs. 

Elements of a Successful Program 

According to the recycling auditor in Faifax County in Virginia, the key elements to success 
are flexibility and communication. (Biocycle, Sept. 1993) This belief is reiterated in a 
number of apartment recycling guides. This section is an elaboration of the "flexibility and 
communication"- theme - Here are some key elements for the design and operation of a 
successful multi-unit residential recycling program: 



May 1994 Page B4-4 



Table B4-1 
Examples of Multi-Unit Residential Recycling Programs 




chute system 

eg 

Robert Cooke Cooperaiive 
Lakeshore Village 
Eiobicoke. ON 



meta] cans 

glass DOiiles and jars 

plasiic bottles 

ONP 

OMG 

OTI3 



2. Ceni/aliKd Collection Area 

e.g. 

William Puntiell Co-op 

Eiobicoke, ON 



i. Carousel System 

e.g. 

Barbeitown Co-c^ 
Mississauga . ON 
(system being tested in a 1 2 
storey building) 



as 



aboi 



ive 




ONP and OMG 

mixed plastic containers and 

nim 

glass and metal conlaineis 



re^denu ooliect materials in 
ihe 2-comparlment storage unit 
under ttie kitchen sink. Paper 
materials are bagged or 
bundled separately 
residents bring materials Ui 
chute rooms ItKated on each 
Door .'ind sort materia!!; In hlno 
boxes for fibres, meial and 
plastic containers, and glass 
Ihe materials are transfened 
Trom Ihe chute room to the 
central collection area by a 
staff person or designated Co- 
op member. The room has 
three chutes, ('ans and plastic 
are sent down one chute. 
Fibres are sent down anoiher. 
(The third chute is for residents 
to dispose of garbage.) Ctlass 
containers and OCC arc put In 
a toler and wheeled to the 
central storage area on main 
noor. 



residenis store material in their 

dwelling 

residents are responsible for 

bringing these materials lo the 

central collection area located 

outside Ihe building 



"mssHSBsasr 



-a 



the central collection area 
features toiers to hold the 
separated materials 
loters must be moved a short 
distance lo the curb to be 
collected by the municipality's 
hydraulic nver-lhc-top 
collection vehicle XK'C 
coMeciion is done by a 
privately conuactcd hauler. 



nitlM 



5^aUMittm,mff4t* M il fm iiii r il YT ili 
hours of labour required per 

week 

large chute rooms to 

accommodate boxes for 

recyclables 

3 cfiuie system 

space for storing recyclables 

has been designed into the 

kitchens of each unit 

each unit is provided with a 

"Recyclist" storage container 

based on a 16 week study, 

recovery is estimated to be 

approximately 32 

kg/capita/year 



residents store materials in the 
units. At their convenience, 
garbage and recyclables are 
brought to Uie chute room 
located on their door 
residents select a material 
option from Ihe control panel 
(eg. the newspaper button) 
after a few seconds the chute 
unlocks and the apprcfiriate 
material can be placed in the 
chute. 1 his process is repeated 
for each material, including 
garbage. 



the central mlleclion area 
consists of 8 loters that are 
chained logeiher 
siaff must unchain the 
containers on collection day 
Ihe municipality services these 
bins once/week with a 
hydraulic over-the-lop 
collection vehicle 



the cunual collection location 
consists of six pie- shaped bins 
sitting on a carousel thai rotate 
in response to the chute room 
control panels. Each bin is 
designed for a speciHc material 
(including garbage) 
staff member is responsible for 
changing bins over when full 
and putting them out for 
collection (bins have castors) 
the bins are serviced by 
vehicles with semi-automatic 
lift systems 



based on a l(i week study. 

recovery is estimated to he 

approximately 33 

kg/capita/year 

minirnal staff involvement in 

Ihe program 



recovery is eslimaled lo be 
approximately 33 
kg/capita/year 
carousel system can be 
installed as part of new 
building constnKticm or 
retrontled into an existing 
stniclure 



S 



a. 






H 



I 



I 




eg 

North Vancouver 

British Columbia 



5. Municipal Recycling Program 



eg 
(iuciph, ON 



6. Municipal Recycling Program 



eg- 
MiJland, ON 



7 Municipal Recycling IVogram 
Waterloo Region 



8. Municipal Recycling IVograra 



eg 

Easi York 



9. Mutiicipal Recycling hogram 



eg- 
CltyofOllawa 



i^smrnesesf 



• metal cans 
glass coniaincrs 
HDPE and PET containers 
ONP 



• metal containers 

• glass containers 

• rigid plastic containers 



■r-rm 

• glass containers 

• metal containers 



. ONP 

• occ 

• OTD 

• PET 

• metal containers 
> glass containers 



; ONP 

• glass containers 

. PETand HDPE battles 

• metal cans 



"Iii5fi5nC50t5Cr 



• maierial stored in blue bags 
distributed by municlpajity 

« materials separated into well- 
signed toters and wooden 
newspaper boxes 



one blue box per unit is given 
to buildings with 10 units or 
less by I tie Region 
blue bags are given on request 
to Cambridge and Kitchener 
residents by the Region 
the City of Waterloo gives 
mini-blue boxes to residents 



• ONP and (JMlJ 

• glass containers 
. PET 

• metal cans 



~E)tt«iwJi;i»iM«>i 



1 - * -^"jj '■'i^i.. 

if required, building lUati will 
move toters tu an area 
accessible by the municipally- 
contracted side-loading 
collection vehicle. The toters 
are piclied up and emptied by 
the lift mechanism. The ONP 
must be collected by hand 
using a dolly. 



1 stream collection in colour- 

coded plastic toters (ONP in 

niie, comniinglcd containers in 

the other) 

pick-up done by lop loading 

iJbrie/Amcriec/Walinga 

vehicles 



3 stream collection in bins 
build by apartment owners 
picked up by one ton flat bed 
truck equipped with meial 
cages 



blue plastic tolcrs are used for 

2 stream collection (fibres and 

containers) 

(X:C is bundled 

top loading Frink/Walinga 

trucks pick up and empty 

loters; OCC is loaded manually 



4 stream collection into fgloos 
, or blue plastic toters 
Igloos serviced by crane 
equipped truck 
loters served by side loading 
LabrieAValinga trucks 



5 stream collection 
containers in 90-gal. Otio carts 
picked up n a Labrie truck 
fibres in 2-cubic yard 
coniainers and picked up by a 
front end loader 



each kBitt produces wi 
esnmaied 20 lbs of recyclahles 
per month 



one vehicle can service li) 
buildings/8 hour day 



in January mi, lii.iM 

households served, in 

December. 30.{X)0 households 

served 

recovery rale of 1,574 tonnes 

gross cost: S854,000 






:3 
Is- 



f<8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



• flexibility of design, communications and operation to take into account the space 
limitations of the buildings and the nature of the residents. Each building is 
unique; 

• involvement of the building manager/owner, the residents and the collector in the 
design, implementation and operation of the program; 

• personal commitment of the building owner /managerAccycling committee; 

• convenience to the building manager and residents; and 

• regular communication with and between all parties involved (municipality, 
manager, driver, residents) 

Experience indicates that if the above factors are met, the quantity and quality of collected 
recyclables be maximized. 

Estimates of Multi-family Recycling in GTA 

There is limited data on recovery rates for recycling in multi-family buildings that could be 
readily applied to diversion estimates for the GTA. Single-family and multi-family capture 
rate data from the Capital Region District (Victoria, BC), Ottawa, North York, Mississauga 
and Etobicoke, shown in the table below, were used to determine a typical recovery rate for 
multi-faniily recycling as compared to single-family recycling. 



I^^HL 


$ingle«raniUj Rate 


MiiltLf^itjIUte 
(kg/hh/yr) 


ftaUaMP/SP 

m 


Victoria, BC 


151 


64 


4$ 


Ottawa, Ont. 


141 


5i-?9 


37-5^ 


GTA (Etobicoke, 
Mississauga, North 
York) 


1^ 


66 - ?i 


59-45 



For systems for which a separate calculation was required, it was assumed that the multi- 
family households divert dry materials at 50% of the single-family household rate. 

In the Wet/Dry System, diversion estimates assumed that, over time, multi-family households 
could divert household food waste at 50% of the single-family rate. This estimate may be 
somewhat optimistic, but it assumes that opportunities to participate in three stream source 
separation will be provided to at least 50% of multi-family households in each Region, and 
that reasonable participation levels can be achieved through extensive promotion and 
education 

Greater effort is required by multi-family residents to compost, and data collected to date 
suggest that participation in neighbourhood and community based composting programs by 
multi-family residents is lower than in single family households. An estimate of 54 kg/hh/yr 
for multi-family composting of food waste in central units has been assumed for this study, 
based on the results of a smdy conducted in Barrie, Ontario, where multi-family households 
participated in a pilot project to compost food waste (Collins, 1994). With a strong 
promotion/education campaign, a participation rate of up to 50% of multi-family units in 
GTA is assumed with a diversion rate of 54 kg/yr per participating household. A discussion 
of multi-family composting is provided in Schedule C of the Service Technical Appendix. 



May 1994 



Page B4-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



References 

AMRC Residential Committee, 1991. Multi-Residential Recycling Guide, September, 1991. 

Energy Pathways Inc. 1990. How-to Manual for Planning and Implementing Recycling 
Programs for Apartment Buildings. Prepared for the Recycling Advisory Committee, 
April 1990. 

Farkas, L. 1992. Multi-Unit Dwelling Composting Demonstration Project. Prepared for City 
of Waterloo and Ontario Ministry of Environment, May 1992. 

Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA, 1990, Local Government Planning for 
Recycling and Multi-Family Buildings, 1990. 

Recycling Council of Ontario, 1993. Multi-residential Composting in Ontario, May 1993. 

RIS, 1994. City of North York Curbside Collection Options, Final Report prepared for the 
City of North York, OMMRI and Ministry of Environment and Energy, March, 1994 

mS, 1994. Three-Chute Evaluation Study, Drerft Report, 1994 

Urban Consortium, Energy Taskforce, Cities of San Diego, CA and Portland, OR, 1992. 
Multi-Family Recycling Programs: Program Data and Implementation Guidelines, 
September 1992. , , 

Personal Communication and Comments 

Collins, M.. 1994. Personal communications with M. Collins, City of Barrie Municipal 
Works Department. April, 1994. 

Phillips, B., 1993. Personal communication with B. Phillips, Capital Regional District, BC, 
1993. 

Wylie, K., 1994. Personal communication with K. Wylie, City of Ottawa, March 1994. 



May J 994 PageB4~8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEPULE B-S ^ MANDATORY SOURCE SEPARATION (MSS) AND 
RECYCLING ORDINANCES 

IntroductifHi 

In a program with mandatory source separation (MSS) of recyclables, residents are required 
to separate designated materials for recycling. MSS is a regulatory measure which can 
compel waste generators to separate waste requiring disposal from that which may be 
recovered for recycling, to provide for separate collection of materials. It provides an extra 
level of support to encourage participation. Source separation is described as an effective 
waste management tool to achieve segregation of recyclable and compostable materials from 
the waste stream, which can be applied to both the residential and IC&I sectors, (VHB 
Research And Consulting, 1993) Source separation regulatory measures provide an impetus 
for citizens to recycle designated materials (ILSR, 1991). In many cases, an MSS program 
will be linked witii other regulatory measures such as material collection and/or disposal 
bans. 

Although mandatory source separation programs appear to be a promising tool in waste 
reduction, there is not yet a great deal of data that specifically addresses waste reduction 
achievements that can be attiibuted to the requirement; however, studies are beginning to 
address the correlation between participation rates in recycling programs and mandatory 
source separation/recycling legislation. During the preliminary stages of a study prepared by 
the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (1993), it was determined that of 45 municipal recycling 
programs operating throughout the United States, the majority (80%) of those that had 
achieved less than 25% materials recovery level were voluntary in nature (ILSR, 1993). 

In order to implement a successful MSS, a number of elements should be put in place 
including: 

• provision of an alternate means of diversion such as curbsidet;ollection, drop-off 
centres, etc; 

• program monitoring (e.g. random container inspection, monitoring garbage by 
haulers, monitoring at the landfill, etc.) 

• program enforcement and identification of consequences for violations (e.g. by 
the collector of recyclables/garbage, by the inspector performing the monitoring 
function, etc). Enforcement techniques include leaving garbage behind with an 
explanation, warnings, and fines. 

Experience in North American Jurisdictions 

MSS has been used as a method to increase participation rates and material recovery rates in 
Canadian, American and European jurisdictions. According to Steve Shrybman (1989), MSS 
programs operating in Ontario and Europe can substantially increase participation rates to 
between 90% and 95%. The following case studies highlight recycling programs that have 
introduced MSS programs and have reported considerable success with their programs. 

Rhode Island Residential MSS program 

Rhode Island's source separation program has achieved a reported 90% participation rate. 
Recovery efficiency rates were estimated based on information received from three 
jurisdictions (Cranston, East Greenwich and West Warwick) which are as follows: 



May 1994 PageB5-l 



Mimstry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Teck/dcal Appendix 



newspaper 


85% 


glass containers 


45% 


aluminum cans 


50% 


PETandHDPE 


75% 


organics 


95% 



The low recovery rate for aluminum cans is attributed to the buy-back program operating in 
the state (SRMG, 1993). 

South-West Oxford Township, Zona and Midland Residential MSS programs 

The Ontario municipalities of South-West Oxford, Zorra and Midland were among the first 
Ontario municipalities to implement MSS programs. The supporting bylaws stipulated source 
separation of designated materials and provided enforcement authority through fines and 
refuse rejection. These municipalities were entitled to refuse to collect non source separated 
garbage and to issue fines of $2000 for Zorra and $100 for Midland. Since the MSS program, 
these municipalities reported participation rates in excess of 90% and that no refuse 
collection ne^ed to be terminated (Shtybman, 1989). 

Region ofHalton, Ontario 

The Region ofHalton (102,233 households) has a mandatory ordinance in place that requires 
residents to separate certain recyclables (include ONP, glass, cans, plastic soft drink 
containers) from other garbage. The MSS ordinance is also linked with a landfill ban for 
these materials. 

When the ordinance was first implemented, a number of enforcement measvu-es were put in 
place including temporary recycling inspectors that patrolled the streets, and fluorescent 
stickers left on trash containers of non-separated garbage in Oakville. Non-compliance could 
be charged with a maximum fine of $2,000. 

After implementing the ordinance, the Region reported improved diversion rates from 19% to 
23%. 

Other Contributing Factors " . , 

Apart fix)m mandatory source separation legislation, there are other factors that may directly 
or indirectly attribute to high participation rates and recovery rates. Some of these factors 
include: the frequency of collection, educational and promotional programs, community 
support and involvement, and supporting enforcement procedures. For example, in the 
community of Babylon, New York, a MSS program has only achieved 63% participation 
rate; however, this program is not supported by an enforcement program and has a bi-weekly 
collection schedule (ILSR, 1991). On the other hand, Hamburg, New York, boasts a 98% 
participation rate which has been attributed to a highly publicized educational program 
(Shrybman, 1989) and a weekly collection program (ILSR, 1991). The Region ofHalton, has 
achieved an over 90% participation rate and also has a MSS program; however, according to 
Art Mercer (Region ofHalton), participation rates exceeded 85% prior to the MSS legislation 
which were attributed to high level of community support and involvement (Mercer, 1992). 



May 1994 Page B5-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



References 

Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). 1991. Beyond 40 Percent: Record-Setting 
Recycling and Composting Programs,. Washington, DC. 

Shrybman, Steven. May 1989. A Regulatory Agenda for Solid Waste Reduction Prepared for 
the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Works Department. 

Sound Resource Management Group (SRMG). Februaiy 1993. Rhode Island At the Recycling 
Crossroads. Prepared for Rhode Island War on Waste. 

VHB Research and Consulting Inc. Januaiy 1993. A Socio-Economic Assessment of Ontario 
Waste Management Initiatives. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the 
Environment. 



May 1994 Page 85-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE B-6 — PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP 

Introduction 

Product stewardship refers to the principle by which the mahufacturers and consumers of 
products and packages are responsible for the costs of managing those products and packages 
throughout their entire life cycle. The principle of product stewardship is an evolving 
concept. Most programs and policies designed to implement product stewardship are 
relatively new. Many of the specific responsibilities and costs associated with products are 
not yet fully defined or understood. However, a variety of different forms of product 
stewardship programs have been implemented or proposed. 

A properly designed product stewardship program should incorporate the following 
elements: 

• help drive source reduction as manufacturers modify product and package designs 
and as consumers respond to the incorporation of waste management costs into 
product prices; 

• encourage design for responsibility; 

• stimulate markets for recycled or reused materials; 

• generate funds to offset the costs of proposed expansions in the waste diversion 
infrastructure. 

There are four basic approaches to implementing a product stewardship program: 

• deposit/refund systems; 

• product/packaging taxes; 

• industry fund^ and self-managed systems with backdrop regulations; 

• mandatory recycling requirements (i.e. minimum secondary content/utilization 
provisions). 

A strategy for implementing a product stewardship program should put in place an 
appropriate mechanism for each sector or group of sectors within industry, until the entire 
range of packaging and short life products is covered by a product stewardship program of 
some kind. No single mechanism will suit all product/package categories. 

DepositI refund system 

In these systems, a deposit is paid by the consumer at the point of purchase for designated 
products or packages. The deposit is refunded to the consumer when the product or package 
is returned to the point of sale or to a designated redemption centre. In this way, 
deposit/refund systems put in place a direct financial incentive to divert post-consumer items 
from landfill. . ^ 

Variations to the basic deposit/refund model include partial refund systems, in which a 
portion of the deposit paid is retained in a public or private sector fund. Some systems 
require the payment of handling fees to retailers or other agents involved in the processing of 
materials, and in some cases unredeemed deposits are regulated and used for other related or 
unrelated purposes. The implementation of deposit/refund systems requires provincial 
involvement. 

The appropriateness of a deposit/refund system for any particular product depends to a large 
extent on the nature of the product and the system through which it is distributed. 
Deposit/refunds may work well for products/packages that can be conveniently returned by 

MaylSm ' PageB6-l 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



consumers to a point of sale, stored on site in a safe and environmentally sound manner, and 
recovered through "reverse distribution." It is unlikely that all packages and short life 
products could be placed on deposit without either making fundamental changes to current 
retail distribution systems, or developing an entirely new recovery infrastructure, based on a 
network of depots that must be operated and funded in parallel with other material recycling 
efforts. 

Product I Packaging Taxes 

Product / packaging taxes represent another approach. Included in this category are charges 
imposed on consumer products and packages. Product charges are generally designed to 
raise revenues for managing the specified products or packages as waste. Tliey may also 
influence consumer purchasing decisions if the charges are visible and sufficiently high 
relative to prices. Ideally, charges would reflect the true cost of managing each item as 
waste. Product charges include: 

• revenue-based charges (e.g. a gross receipts tax imposed as a percentage of the 
sales revenues from designated products/packages); 

• unit charges (e.g. a flat fee imposed per unit of product/package sold); 

• variable unit charges (e.g. fees that vary according to weight, volume, toxicity or 
some other indicator of potential impact on solid waste). 

Product charges may be collected from consumers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors, 
producers and/or importers. It is possible to build exemptions into a product charge system 
(e.g. so that no fee is applied against items that are managed within a recycling or 
deposit/refund program). Product charges are generally considered within provincial 
jurisdiction. 

Industry Funded and Self-Managed Systems 

This type of approach could also be applied to all packages and short life products. A variety 
of these types of systems have been implemented to date, or at least proposed and debated. 
Implementation of these types of systems typically begin with the establishment of a 
backdrop regulation which includes; 

• a definition of the manufacturers' responsibility and a list of the criteria which 
must be satisfied (e.g. establishment of defined waste management infrastructure, 
markets for recovered materials). 

• clear identification of the products, packages and materials to be covered by 
manufacturers' responsibility, and the industries/sectors affected; 

• a schedule of implementation, indicating the dates by which product stewardship 
programs for each category of products, packages or materials must be in place; 

• authorization for the provincial government to impose regulatory and prescriptive 
measures should product stewardship programs fail. Backdrop measures could 
include the fourth basic product stewardship approach -- secondary content 
standards or minimum utilization requirements — as well as product/packaging 
bans and design restrictions. 

The affected' industries arc typically given sufficient scope to organize themselves in a 
manner which they feel will achieve the required product stewardship responsibilities 

May 1994 PageB6-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Techidccd Appendix 



efficiently. In most cases to date, this has resulted in the foimation of an industry-financed 
consortium to create the required waste management systems, contract out the management 
of a waste to other agents, fund an existing waste management system, or otherwise carry out 
the specified responsibilities. 

The most comprehensive example of this type of system implemented to date is Germany's 
Duales System Deutchland (DSD), also known as the "Green Etot System". The system is 
described later in this chapter. 

Mandatory Recycling Requirements 

Mandatory recycling requirements can be expressed cither as minimum content requirements, 
minimum utilization requirements, or minimum recovery rates. 

Minimum content requirements establish an amount of recycled material that must be 
included by manufacturers in designated products or materials. The amount is usually 
expressed on a percentage basis (e.g. minimum 50% recycled content in newsprint). A time 
frame is usually established, whereby manufacturers are given a date before which the 
minimum content levels must be met or exceeded. Many recycled content laws currently in 
place provide a schedule of recycled content standards that increase over time to allow a 
gradufd transition for the targeted industries. 

Minimum utilization requirements are imposed on manufacturers, consumer product 
companies, importers or other responsible entities. These entities must utilize a specified 
amount of secondary material by a pre-determined date. Utilization may be achieved through 
a variety of means, including direct use in recycled content products, or contracting other 
parties to reuse or recycle the designated materials in some acceptable manner. 

Utilization requirements are more flexible than minimum content requirements because they 
allow industries to use recovered materials in a range of end uses. (For example, post- 
consumer glass containers might be used as aggregate in road construction, incorporated into 
products such as reflective paint, or remanufactured back into new glass containers.) 

Minimum content standards and minimum utilization requirements may be effective in 
ensuring markets in some cases, but may also limit flexibility in the development of waste 
diversion technologies and end market applications; These measures are more suited to a 
material-by-material approach, rather than a broad-based approach. These mechanisms 
should be incorporated into backdrop regulations for industry self-managed systems. 

Minimum recovery rates can be established for specific materials, with the details and 
methods left to the producers of these materials. 

Issues 

A number of issues have emerged in attempts to implement product stewardship programs. 
These include: 

• I^roduct stewardship can be extended only to those parts of the solid waste stream 
that can be traced directly to specific manufacturers and distributors (i.e. used 
products and packages). AH organic wastes are generally excluded. 

• There is as yet no clear, widely accepted standard for calculating the full life-cycle 
costs, or even the waste management costs, of products and packages. As a result, 
most anempts at product stewardship through taxes or levies have relied upon 

May 1994 PageB6-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis ~ Service Tecfwical Appendix 



highly simplified methods for allocating costs among industry members (e.g. flat 
fees per unit of product sold). In many cases, these methods bear no direct 
relationship to actual waste management and environmental costs. , 

• Many of the product stewardship programs implemented and proposed to date 
require complex industry/government negotiations, often with no clear 
precedents. 

Examples 

Germany's "Green Dot" System 

Germany's "Green Dot" system is perhaps the most widely discussed product 'stewardship 
nKxiel. The system is being put in place by a non-profit, industry-funded corporation -- 
Duales System Deutschland (DSD) - as an alternative method of compliance to a regulation 
passed by the German government that would permit all packaging to be returned to retailers. 
DSD is a national materials collection organization that is now financing a national system 
for packaging recovery tiurough curbside programs and depots. A packaging levy paid by 
manufacturers is used to fund DSD, and all packages for which the levy is paid are labelled 
with a "green dot". There is an incentive for retailers, who are strongly opposed to handling 
used packaging in their stores, to stock only those products with the green dot. The system 
includes a wide range of packaging materials, and material-specific recovery targets are 
being carefully monitored by government. DSD returns all materials to industry at a price of 
zero. 

A number of problems have arisen in the "green dot" program including increasingly high 
sorting costs, and a limited manufacturing capacity to absorb the plastic packaging that has 
been collected. The result has been that a large amount of plastics collected by the DSD has 
been exported and landflUed outside of Germany. 

Eco'Emballage, France ^ 

France's Eco-Emballage program, now in early stages of development, borrows from both the 
German Green Dot and Ontario OMMRI system. It is an industiy consortium that will be 
funded from fees levied against packaging (which will be identified with a green dot, as in 
Germany). It will participate in a shared industry/government funding arrangement, in which 
Eco-Emballage will pay for that portion of recycling costs which exceeds the average cost of 
incineration with energy recovery. 

Canadian Packaging Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI) 

The proposed Canadian Packaging Stewardship Model, supported by a wide range of 
product manufacturers and retailers proposes the formation of a national industry funding 
organization (IFO). It also proposes a system of industry levies in which each industry 
member will pay in proportion to the actual costs of managing their packages. Unlike the 
existing systems mentioned above, this model would also incorporate explicit market 
development incentives, including a rebate paid to industry members who are able to utilize 
secondary packaging. Investments will also be made to research new technologies to expand 
or establish new markets and financial incentives for corporations to increase their use of 
recovered materials and to re-design their packaging materials. 

The model also p|^poses backdrop regulations in each province that would require all brand 
owners to either join the IFO or establish a product stewardship program of their own. The 

May 1994 [ Page B6-4 



Ministry cf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



responsibility for managing packaging under CIPSI will be shared between the producer, the 
distributor and the consumer. 

References 

CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd, Resource Integration Systems, and Peat Marwick Stevenson & 
Kcllog. 1994. Comprehensive Waste Management Strategy for the Greater 
Vancouver Regional District. April 1994. 

GPMC. Enviro brief. Packaging Stewardship Model. 

Haas, Chad. 1994. International Recycling Policy. Associated Recyclers in Wisconsin. 
March - April 1994. 

State Recycling Laws Update. 1994. Getting the Green Dotted: The German Recycling Law , 
Explained in Plain English. Special Report, April 1994. 



May 1994 PageB6-5 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Teckniccd Appendix 



SCHEDULE B-7 — COLLECTION SYSTEM DESIGN DECISIONS 

Collection Program Design Decisions 

The selection of collection equipment for a curbside program depends on a number of 
program design considerations which are related to the separation and storage activities at the 
household, curbside setout and collection details, and processing and marketing 
arrangements. Whether starting or expanding a program, the following issues must be 
resolved in the collection program design: 

• What materials will be collected in the program? How many households will be 
served? 

• What preparation steps will the householder be requested to perform? (e.g, rinse 
jars, remove labels, etc.). How will materials be set out at the curb? (e.g. flatten 
OCC and bundle, ONP in a bag, etc.) 

• What type of household container(s) will be used? What size? 

• What will be the frequency of collection? 

• What degree of commingling will be on the truck? 

• How will the materials be processed? 

Many of these issues are interrelated and will have a direct impact on the type of collection 
truck required. For example, the frequency of collection and the number of materials 
collected will affect the size and perhaps the type of container, and the degree of 
commingling on the truck will impact the efficiency of the collection operation, the type of 
truck, and the complexity of the processing operation. 

The following section provides more detailed information on a number of the issues 
mentioned above. 

Convenience 

Experience has shown that material recovery is maximized when the program is made 
convenient for the householder. A recycling program will require that residents separate 
recyclables from trash, prepare recyclables, store them until collection day, and set them out 
on the curb in a specific way. By complicating or adding to these steps, convenience drops, 
and some residents may decide they no longer wish to participate in the program -- the result 
is a drop in program participation and material recovery. 

Household containers 

In general, die basic types of household containers used today are: rectangular boxes (the 
"Blue Box"), roll-out carts, and bags. Convenience plays an important part in container 
selection, since the number of containers used and their size may have an impact on program 
participation. 

The "Blue Box" is most conunonly used in Ontario. The Blue Box offers a powerful 
publicity tool for the community and a source of recognition for participants. Some 
disadvantages of the Blue Box is die amount of space required for storage. Also, some argue 
that residents are likely to set out their blue bins when they are slightly more than half full 

May 1994 [ Page B7-1 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



instead of completely full - this decreases the collection efficiency, since the hauler must 
stop to collect a half empty bin of recyclables. However, aggressive promotion and 
education efforts are teaching residents to set out their Blue Boxes only when full. 

Roll-out carts are now being used in some curbside programs that collect a broad range of 
materials. Carts typically range in size from 30 to 90 gallon, are convenient to roll to the 
curb, and are normally lifted and unloaded by an hydraulic mechanism on the collection 
vehicle. The 90 gallon carts are more commonly used for multi-family programs. Some 
residents find the cart storage poses a problem if space is limited or if multiple carts are 
required. Carts are also relatively expensive (range ftom $55-$75 for a 30 gallon container 
and $90-$ 120 for a 90 gallon container) and do not allow further sorting to occur at the curb. 

A growing number of communities are testing bag systems for the collection of recyclables. 
The bags are similar to plastic garbage bags, however, many programs distribute specially 
colour^ bags (blue, green, etc.) printed with recycling logos. The primary advantage of bag 
systems is that die bags can be collected using the same truck as garbage, often at the same 
time, potentially reducing system collection costs. Bags can also hold more than a bin. 
Participants may also choose to set out bags less frequentiy than a bin, since the bag can be 
tied and set aside until it is full. This increases the efficiency of collection, since the hauler 
decreases the number of stops on a route (however, full bags of recyclables are collected). 
Some disadvantages include bags ripping, additional costs of bag-opening at the MRF, and a 
higher potential for contamination (materials cannot easily be screened during collection at 
the curb). The most critic^ aspect of a bag program is finding an efficient, cost-effective, 
sustainable, and convenient means of bag distribution to residents — much coordination is 
required to make sure local retailers have a supply of recycling bags. 

Levelof Commingling on the Truck 

Whether to collect recyclable materials commingled or segregated is a key issue because of 
the implications to overall program design and especially collection efficiency. The level of 
comnungling during collection will also impact the processing design. 

The degree to which recyclables are mixed in the collection vehicle can be defined by the 
following three main options (also, see Overview- Recycling System Option, Figure B7.1 
which shows the interrelationships between collection and processing). 

1. Fully commingled. Recyclables are set out togedier and loaded into the collection 
vehicle unsorted (fibre and container materials together). This option provides 
maximum collection efficiency, due to reduced driver sorting time (no segregation 
at the truck). Another advantage is that there is less concern about truck 
compartments filling at different rates. The implication of this system is that a 
maximum level of sorting is required at the processing facility, thereby increasing 
processing costs. There is also a concern about increasing contamination levels 
(especially ONP and glass). For these reasons, fully commingled systems are not 
very common in North America. 

2. Partially commingled. At a minimum, the collection vehicle is divided into at 
least two compartments, usually to separate fibre materials from the remaining 
container materials. A truck with more than two compartments may have further 
separation of materials (e.g. plastics combined with glass, or cans combined with 
plastics). This system will require less processing at the processing facility. 

3. Fully segregated. All materials are placed in their own compartment in the 
collection vehicle. All plastic or all colours of glass may be commingled but 

May 1994 PageB7-2 



Figure B7.1 
Recycling System Options 



I 



COLLECTION 



PROCESSING 



Level of 
Sorting 



FEW SORTS 



I 



MANY SORTS 



Type of 
Collection 



Fully Commingled 
(commonly curbside 
collection) 



1 Level of 
1 Processing 




Implication 




MAXIMUM 


— extensive separation 




$$ 




— increases contamination 


'■ 




levels (esp ONP and glass) 



Partially Commingled 
(commonly curbside - 
sometimes depot) 



basic sorting and 

processing equipment 

required 

some consolidation 



Segregated (commonly 
depot collection - 
sometimes curbside) 



MINIMUM 



minimal separation required 
usually only densification 
sometimes shipped directly 
to market or broker 



I* 

t 



2- 
2 



I 



I 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Amlysis - Service Technical Append 



different materials arc not mixed together. This option is most commonly used in 
depot collection programs. In a curbside program, as more and more materials are 
added to the sorting requirement, the more the likelihood that one of the 
compartments will fill earlier than the others (the truck will then need to return to 
the MRF — inefficient use of truck capacity). Separation requirements at the 
processing facility arc minimal. This system also often results in materials of 
higher quality, since they have never been commingled. 

Partially commingled or fully segregated collection typically results in slower collection 
times per stop than commingled collection. Obviously, the more sorting done at the truck, 
the more time spent per stop (stop time per household increases by about 5 seconds with each 
additional material sort that the driver does at the truck). Therefore, as collection crews sort 
recyclables into more and more categories, the number of stops per hour should decline. 

As the level of commingling on the truck increases, processing costs decrease (level of 
separation required at the processing facility is decreased). Each community will need to 
compare the collection sorting costs versus processing sorting costs. 

Selection of Curbside Collection Vehicles 

Key criteria which need to be considered in selecting the appropriate collection vehicle 
include: „ ■ . 

• Capacity. The desired capacity of a truck depends on the quantity and volume of 
materials which will be collected during a given period. Capacity indirectly 
impacts collection efficiency, in that fewer trips are required to unload material. 
Generally, the larger the capacity, the more efficient the collection. 

• Vehicle dimensions. The length, width and height of a vehicle. Loading a longer 
vehicle will take more time than a regular-length truck. Vehicles with a low 
loading height are more efficient to load. 

• Flexibility. The level of flexibility to adapt to changes in material types collected 
or variations in material volumes brought about by seasonal fluctuations. This 
criteria is important as a recycling program evolves. 

• Design Features. The primary consideration in selecting a vehicle is collection 
efficiency. Some specific factors that affect collection efficiency and have not yet 
been mentioned include: 

— right-hand drive, stepout cab. If the driver also loads material, a right-hand 
drive cab with a low-profile curbside stepout design minimizes the time it 
takes for the driver to exit and enter the vehicle during the collection. 

— hydraulic loading. Many collection vehicles now have hydraulic lifting 
devices at the side, front, or rear to assist in loading recyclables into the truck. 
In many collection operations, hydraulic loading mechanisms have increased 
collection efficiency by about 15 percent. 

The most conunon recycling vehicle used today is a closed-body recycling truck 
operated by one person. The trucks have dual cfrive, and are hydraulically loaded. 
Trucks include a number of compartments. 

• Cost. Dedicated collection vehicles generally range in price ft-om about $45,000 
to $1 10,000, depending on the generic type of vehicle and its design features. At 

May 1994 '■ PageWJ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



, least 50% of the annual operating cost of a one-pcrson-operated vehicle is 
typically made up of salary and benefits. (Obviously, as the crew size increases, 
this percentage grows). This is why many recycling vehicle designers arc 
providing efficient material collection by using a single driver. Recycling 
operators must review the impact of both the capital and operating costs of the 
vehicle. For example, the capital cost of incorporating right-hand drive capability 
with stepout to the curb may be high, however, it will be offset by a reduction in 
operating cost resulting from the increase in operator efficiency. 

Program Efficiency 

In an effort to design a collection system which is cost-effective and efficient, a number of 
communities are using one vehicle to collect both garbage and recyclables. This type of 
collection system is called "co-collection" and is a relatively recent development in the 
recycling field. The main advantage of this system is that it is able to integrate garbage, 
recycling and composting collection (in one truck), therefore reducing collection costs 
considerably. 

There are two different methods of co-collection. The most common approach is for 
residents to commingle recyclables in one bag and set the bag(s) out at curbside with their 
garbage. Haulers collect the bags of recyclables and garbage in the same truck. The most 
significant cost advantage of the bag collection is the use of existing collection vehicles. 
However, there are added handling and processing costs because bags of recyclables need to 
be separated from bags of garbage. Also, the bags of recyclables must be "debagged" and 
sorted. Glass breakage can be a problem since recyclables are commingled in bags and 
collected with garbage - this may contribute to contamination rates. 

In the second approach, residents set out their recyclables in rigid containers with their bags 
of garbage. The material is collected in a specially designed "co-collection" vehicle, or in 
vehicles that have been retrofitted with recycling bins or trailers. This method involves an 
immediate capital investment for the containers and the collection vehicle, however it avoids 
double handling of refuse, and reduces the amount of processing required for the recyclables. 

A number of vehicle manufactures have developed specialized co-collection vehicles with 
multi-compartments. The earlier models had two compartments either horizontally or 
vertically split. More recently, manufacturers have developed vehicles with two to five 
compartments to source separate recyclables (e.g. fibres, glass, and containers). Vehicles 
with fixed compartments may be subject to "cubing out" problems ~ this occurs when one 
compartment fills up at a faster rate than the others. When this happens, the vehicle must be 
unloaded bef<Mie it can continue collecting material. 

Although Ontario experience with co-collection systems is limited, the availability of 
innovative dual compartment collection vehicles and the need to find more cost-effective 
ways to run recycling programs has led many municipalities to rethink the way that they now 
collect recyclables and refuse. 

A number of co-collection case studies are included in Table B7. 1 . 



May 1994 Page B7-5 



«9 



Table B7.1 
Summary of Selected Co-Collection Programs 



Program 



Chicago. Illinois 
• pilot blue bag co-collection 
program 



Source: City of Nonh York 
Curbside Collection Options. 
1994 



RIS. 



Deisqiptioit 



■TJ 

6, 



pilot program conducted duiing spring 

1991 

serving 2.8(K) hhlds 

recyclables collected in blue bags 

supplied by the city -- residents 

requested to segregate fibres {ONP and 

OMG) in bags within the blue bags to 

help sorting 

yard waste also collected in separate 

bags 

regular packer \ruck. used to collect 

blue bags, garbage bags and yard waste 

bags 

recyclable materials collected include 

ONP, OMG, glass, metal containers, 

HDPE, LDPE and other plastic 

containers 



"RSuIH" 



about 9% of the blue bags were not 
recovered from the garbage because of 
bag breakage 

contaminants and residue comprised 
about 1 1 % of the contents of the blue 
bags that were recovered 
monthly panicipation rate about 80% - 
convenience cited as positive attribute 
many criticisms of the pilot including 
poor quality of recovered material 
(particularly as a result of 
contamination by broken glass) 
City projected a savings of about $29 
million/year over 10 years compared to 
the costs of a blue box 
recovery about 82 kg/hhld/yr 






I ^ 

t> 5 



I 



I 



I 



gmimm^S^^ , 


De$cripUon 


:- ■ 'Rii^ults':--' 


Omaha, Nebraska 


• 100,000 hhlds served 


• some glass breakage occurs when 


• full-scale blue bag co-collection 


• program fully operational by 1990 


materials are compacted on truck 


program 


• garbage and recyclables placed into 


16% of blue bag material rejected as 




same compartment of compactor trucks 


non-recyclable 




- existing collection vehicles used (no 


• co-collection and haulage costs are 




modifications required) 


about $44/tonne; receipt of co- 




• one person vehicle 


collected material and separation of 




• bags containing recyclables are sorted 


blue bags is about $8/lonne; processing 




from refuse at the processing facility 


of recyclables is $ 1 34/tonne 




• recyclables collected include ONP, 


• monthly participation rate is 52-54% 


, 


glass, ferrous, aluminum, coloured and 


• recovery about 55 kg/hhld/yr 




clear HOPE, green and clear PET 






• residents required to separate ONP and 






place in blue bag - remaining 






commingled materials placed in 




■ 


separate bag 






• bags purchased by residents at grocery 




Source: Municipal 3Rs 


store 




Infrastnicture: A Reference Guide. 






International Case Studies. 






Ministry of Environment and 






Energy, 1994. 






Houston, Texas 


• participants fully commingled 


• when bags were originally supplied to 


• pilot blue bag co-collection 


recyclables in blue bag 


residents, participation rate was from 




• 19,000 hhlds served 


30-40% 




• blue bags and garbage bags collected 


• once residents were required to 




in same compartment of truck 


purchase own bags, participation 




• materials collected include ONP, 


dropped to about 15-20% (attributed to 


' 


ferrous and aluminum containers, PET, 


cost and inconvenience) 




HOPE rigid 


• about 16% of bags were rejected 


Source: City of North York 




during processing 


Curbside Collection Options. RIS. 






1994 







bi 

PI 

ll 



I 



■ »^ ' ^^ffn"" 



Propnmi 



Lemsterland, Netherlands 

• full-scale co-collection program 

with specialized truck and 

containers 



Descriptioit 



about 4,526 hhlds served - 5% high- 

rise and multi-family 

each household has 2 split 63 gallon 

carts 

26 cubic yard truck is used - 

horizontally split. Both compartments 

have variable compaction ability 

week one - organics and garbage are 

collected; week two- one compartment 

used for fibres, the other for 

commingled containers 



Results 



. 900 to 1,400 carts can be collected in li 

hours 
• achieve about 65% diversion 



■T3 



I 



i 
I 



Ministry cf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



References 

Anderson, P. 1994. Improving the efficiency of curbside recycling collection. Resource 
Recycling. April 1994. 

Graham, B. 1993. RIS. Collection Equipment and Vehicles from the McGraw-Hill 
Recycling Handbook. 1993. 

Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1992. Co-collection of Recyclables and Mixed Waste: 
Problems and Opportunities. 1992. 



May 1994 PageB7-9 



Ministry ttf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE B-8— FirrURE WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION 

Role of Future Waste Generation and Composition in this Study 

This section presents information about potential future changes to waste generation and 
composition in both the residential and IC&I sectors. Despite the growing interest in future 
waste generation and composition, no definitive research has been conducted that 
investigates the effect of future Ufestyle, economic, and technological trends on product 
design, use, and disposal. There is an inconsistency in the information and analysis that 
reflects a wide range of opinions on the topic. Consequentiy, this section is presented as a 
description of the current state of debate related to potential effects of future trends on society 
and its waste stream. 

Future waste generation and composition is a critical factor in planning future waste 
management and diversion programs and facilities. These estimates have assumed that future 
waste generation will be similar to the generation (expressed as tonnes/capita and 
tonnes/employee) experienced in the last six to seven years. It has also been assumed that 
some source reduction of these generation rates will occur over time. 

For the short term, evidence suggests that waste generation rates in the residential sector and 
the IC&I sector will not vary considerably (as will be discussed in the next section on shon 
term trends). Over the long term, however, the verdict is less consistent, particularly as 
source reduction may potentially assume a nrore prominent role. 

Future waste composition is more difficult to predict with any degree of confidence, as it 
depends on a large number of factors, such as changes in Ufestyle patterns, economic trends, 
and technological transformations. Over the next 20-25 years, future residential waste 
composition will vary depending on how our attitudes and behaviours towards consumption 
change as a reflection of changes in lifestyle habits and technology. Similarly, future IC&I 
waste composition will depend on how our commercial and industrial base changes over the 
next 20-25 years. 

In the short term, consumption patterns are assumed to remain fairly constant. While there 
may be greater substitution in materials used in the production of products (i.e. paper made 
from hemp and straw rather than trees), this shift will not significantly impact on the 
composition of the waste stream. The long term impact of developing the "information 
highway" and other economic and technological trends can only be speculated upon. This is 
done in the following sections. 

Because of the uncertainty associated with future waste composition estimates, the GTA 3Rs 
study has been carried out assuming that generated waste composition will remain similar to 
that which is currentiy experienced. This is a conservative approach, that is considered more 
reliable and defensible than assuming a waste composition trend based on assumptions which 
may or may not occur. This approach is similar to that used by Sound Resource Management 
Group in their review of the November 1993 Draft GTA 3Rs Analysis. 

Approach to Discussion of Future Trends 

Predicting future trends for waste generation and composition relies on predicting future 
economic, technological, social and lifestyle trends. For the long term especially, this is 
subjective and mosUy theoretical. Research conducted in this area has revealed a broad range 
of often diverging and contradicting opinions about long term trends. Short term trends qan 
be predicted with more accuracy however, because their beginnings are often rooted in past 
and present economic and lifestyle patterns. 



May 1994 >, ■ PageB8-l 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Append 



For this reason, future trends are discussed in two separate sections of text, namely the short 
term, which covers the years 1995 to 2000, and the long term trends, which cover the years 
2000 to 2016. This information is provided fca" information only, and highlights significant 
lifestyle/consumer changes that are considered likely to affect waste generation and disposal. 

Short Term Trends: 199S to 2000 

The availability of literature featuring short and long term trends in waste generation and 
composition is scarce. Information on short term trends has been derived mostly from U.S. 
sources. These sources are used as a guide since past and present waste composition and 
generation rates have remained relatively similar between the United States and Canada. 

Residential Sector 

The 1992 report Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, prepared by 
Franklin Associates for the Environmental Protection Agency, indicated that per capita waste 
generation in the United States increased from 2.7 lbs per person per day in 1960 to 4.3 lbs 
per person per day in 1990. By the year 2000, it predicts that the waste generation rate will 
increase to 4.5 lbs per person per day. This indicates that generation of solid waste is still 
anticipated to increase by a small amount to the year 20i00. This increase is relatively 
insignificant compared with the increase experienced in the last 30 years. Overall, the 
Franklin report projects that municipal solid waste generation will increase at a rate of 1.3% 
annually between 1990 and 2000, compared with the annual increase of 2.8% experienced 
between 1980 and 1990. 

Other documents indirectly support this trend of minimal changes in generation rates over the 
short term. Advertising spending is considered both a reflection and a stimulus for 
consumerism, according to the WorldWatch Institute (1994). Since the 1950s, per capita 
expenditures on advertising in the United States has increased from $200 per person in 1950 
to $468 per person in 1990. As North Americans reach a potential saturation point of 
advertising and consumerism, corporations have begun to focus on new, untapped sources 
such as the Asian market in the behef that "Asians will be the consumers of the 1990s" 
(Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990, pg 28). 

The Franklin report projects no major changes in waste composition to the year 2000. Paper 
and paperboard are projected to be the dominant materials in the municipal waste stream 
(MSW) and will make up an estimated 38% of total waste generated. Part of the rise in paper 
use can be attributed to globalization. Increasingly, the public enjoys access to more 
publications from around the world such as magazines, newspapers, and books than ever 
before, according to the authors of Megatrends 2000 (Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990). 

The use of paper and paperboard as well as plastics, wood and some miscellaneous materials 
is expected to increase faster than the population, while the use of glass and metals are 
projected to increase more slowly than the population. Food wastes are projected to show no 
increase in generation, while yard trinmiings are expected to decline as a percentage of the 
waste stream. 

The Franklin repon also predicts an increase in the consumption of durable goods over the 
next decade. This trend, if true, will have a more significant impact in the waste stream over 
the long term rather than the short term with the result being a gradual reduction in waste 
generation rates over time. The report sites the following trends as evidence: substitution of 
lighter materials (such as aluminum and plastics) for heavier steel; manufacturing of tires 
with longer life spans; and manufacturing of cars with extended rust proof guarantees. As 
North Americans move towards a higher wage economy (Beck, 1992; Naisbin & Aburdene, 
1990), they can potentially afford the higher capital investments of durable goods. Also, as 
more companies begin to incorporate the concepts of full cost accounting and life cycle 
May 1994 Page B8-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



analysis into design and manufacturing procedures, the effect should favour durabihty and 
multiple use over single use and disposal. 

In the short term, however, the consumption pattern trends do not favour a rapid movement 
towards durable goods. Steel production remains on the decline (WorldWatch Institute, 
1994) and generation of containers and packaging is on the incline (Franklin Associates, 
1992), For example, in the first half of the 1980s, per capita consumption of frozen prepared 
meals increased by over 30% in Western Europe, with a similar trend experienced in North 
America (Duming, 1991). 

In Canada, the increase in packaging and containers should not be as prominent as in the 
United States due to changes expected to result from the National Packaging Protocol 
(NAP?) which requires a 50% reduction in packaging going to landfill by the year 2000. 
This national initiative may lead to a substantial reduction in the quantities of packaging 
waste both produced and disposed. Other product stewardship initiatives being developed in 
Canada may also help to shape future trends in packaging and the waste generation rates. • 
There are no such initiatives being undertaken on a national or regional scale within the 
United States, upon which the Franklin observations are based. 

Recent changes in shopping options and conservation programs may have a small effect on 
the waste stream. For example, over the past while, chains such as the Price Club and 
Aikenheads warehouse-like outlets have become popular. These chains promote bulk 
shopping by offering consumers large price discounts for no frill, buy-in-bulk shopping. 
Because customers buy large quantities, there is often less packaging associated with this 
shopping behaviour, however, no effort has been made to quantify the impacts on the waste 
stream. Whether this trend will continue over the long term is difficult to predict since these 
chains offer very limited selections of products to custoihers. This approach flies in the face 
of consumerism and choice, but is popular with many shoppers. 

IC&I Sector , , 

Recent voluntary and mandatory initiatives aimed at Canadian industries will impact on the 
generation of the IC&I waste stream. Initiatives, such as the Canadian Industry Product 
Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI), Canadian Buy Recycled Alliance (CERA), and Ontario's 3Rs 
Regulations (waste audit and waste reduction plan legislation) encourage the IC&I sector to 
ev^uate its waste generating habits and modify them to achieve a reduced waste stream. 

Product stewardship models and initiatives are cunentiy being considered in Ontario, which, 
if implemented would have a major impact on the amount of packaging waste generated and 
disposed. Packaging stewardship programs may result also in a shift to different packaging 
types depending on the financing structure of the program. 

The Province of Ontario is the only Canadian province to legislate IC&I waste audits and 
waste reduction plans with the intent of making companies more aware of their waste 
generating habits and the savings to be made by reducing the waste stream. However, the 
State of Rhode Island has had similar legislation in place since 1988. Over half of the 
respondents of a recent Rhode Island survey questionnaire indicated that they have 
implemented source reduction and reuse activities, including double- sided photocopying, 
reusing shipping materials, replacing reusable mugs for disposable ones and purchasing items 
in bulk. In the survey, no attempt was made to estimate the effect on these practices on waste 
stream quantities or composition. 

Programs introduced in the United States, such as the Green Lights Program and Ontario 
Hydro's energy conservation policy, may haye the effect of reducing the number of 
incandescent lights used by the IC&l sectors. Incandescent and energy inefficient fluorescent 
lights are being gradually replaced by energy efficient fluorescent lighting which last at least 
May 1994 Page B8-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



10 times longer than incandescent lights. The impact on the waste stream, at this point, is 
difficult to quantify, but is likely to be minor. 

Currently, however, IC&I sector appears to be increasing its use of papers. The Worldwatch 
Institute attributes the rising global demand for office and printing paper to the steady growth 
of service industries and office employment and attributes the decline in demand for steel to 
increased use of other substitutes (1994). 

For the time being, while the overall composition of the waste stream may not alter 
significantly in the short term, the composition of products may. In her book. Shifting Gears, 
Nuala Beck argues that there is no such thing as "scarcity of resources"; technological 
developments allow society to substitute one resource for another. Some recent trends 
include: the use of com, seaweed, straw, hemp, sugar cane, and sugar beet cellulose as a 
substitute for trees in the manufacturing of paper (Isaacs, 1994), the production of car 
bumpers and other components from textile Hbres (Beck, 1993), and shoes made from diaper 
waste, plastic tnilk jugs, and rubber tires (Globe and Mail, 1994). 

Long Term Trends: 2000 to 2016 

Predicting trends for the long term ultimately depends on predicting new technological 
developments and how they are to be tempered by social attitudes. A thirst for knowledge 
and technological advancement is an inherent and predictable part of human nature. How far 
people are likely to go in the quest for knowledge and the development of technological 
innovations remains unclear. How future technological innovations will impact on our 
lifestyles also remains unclear. In the book, Fuxurehype: the Tyranny of Prophecy, the author, 
Max Dublin, argues that "many of the most respectable prophecies today still fly in the face 
of common sense and/or common decency". With that statement in mind, this section 
explores long term trends that may potentially impact future generation rates and the 
composition of the waste stream. 

The following discussion focusses on long-term trends affecting the residential and IC&I 
sectors. The residential sector features a discussion of consumerism and the effect of the 
information era on lifestyle trends, while the IC&I sector features a discussion about the new 
technology/information era, environmental accounting, and technology trends. 

Residential Sector 

Lifestyle Trends 

Society appears to be on the edge of an era featuring the new global economy and the new 
'information highway'. The potential impact on our lifestyle of these combined forces could 
be significant, although exact impacts are uncertain. 

The information age and supporting technology (i.e. computers, VCR's, and cellular phones) 
has already had a profound effect on our lifestyles. Rather than invading people's sense of 
privacy and security, the authors of Megatrends 2000 , claim that "computers, cellular 
phones, and fax machines empower individuals, rather than oppress them, as previously 
feared" (Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990, pg 303). 

The impact of information technology on our lifestyles has been significant. Computers are 
no longer associated with office environments, since they are found in increasing numbers of 
households. If predictions about the information highway prove correct, more householders 
will rely on computers and other telecommunication technology to purchase goods, pay bills, 
provide services and advice, and conduct business all without leaving the home. 



May 1994 PageB8-4 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



Many futurists agree (Popcorn, 1991; Aburdene & Naisbitt, 1992) that at home shopping will 
also continue to grow. The verdict is out on whether at home shopping will result in more or 
less packaging. Faith Popcorn, author of The Popcorn Report argues that "packaging is 
over" since the frequent communications between consumer and manufacturer will 
eliminate the need for excessive packaging (Popcorn, 1991). Others appear less sure, 
particularly if mail/catalogue order continues as a popular at home shopping option 
(Aburdene & Naisbitt, 1992). With the rise of home shopping, it may be reasonable to 
expect a growth in the package delivery business, since goods will more likely be packaged 
individually rather than in bulk. 

The Popcorn Report suggests development of other home shopping trends, including the 
prediction that "home delivery will become away of life, with holding tanks in the house for 
milk, soda, mineral water (all refrigerated), and bins for laundry soap and dog kibble, all 
delivered like home heating oil" (Popcorn, 1991). 

Some proponents of the information era predict that the new supporting technologies will 
eliminate the need for paper and other materials. In a recent article, the Toronto Star rcpcmed 
that within a decade, newspapers could be replaced by light, portable, electronic tablets. 
News and information would be delivered anywhere in the world by fibre optic cable or 
satellite signal to computer memory cards contained within the tablet (Toronto Star, 1994). 

In the short term however, the recent surge in information-based technologies has 
significantly increased our use of paper rather than reducing it. Revolutions in printing 
technologies, photocopiers, and fax machines have facilitated the rapid growth in paper 
consumption (Worldwatch Institute, 1994). 

Consumerism 

At the same time, access to greater amounts of information coupled with the movement 
towards a global economy should increase our demand for and access to goods and services. 
James Snider, a consumer-education txpcn writing in The Futurist (1992) points out that in 
1800, a typical American had access to fewer than 300 products on sale in his or her 
hometown, while in 1993, a typical American living in a urban centre has access to more than 
a million consumer products. The typical GTA resident probably has access to a similar 
number of products. 

Globalization has touched every country and culture in the world with one of the major 
impacts being the increased availability of products world wide. Coca-Cola has become a 
common household word in every comer of the earth; "go to the end of a rural road on any 
Third World continent, walk a day up a donkey trail to a hardscrabble village, and ask for a 
Coke. Odds are, you'll get one" (Duming, 1993). Similarly, products from every culture are 
now available in stores across North America. 

The potential short term impact of the global economy on consumerism will be greater 
availability of products. Possibly cheaper, lower quality products will initially flood the 
market until developing countries begin to pay greater attention to social and environmental 
standards and people begin demanding a universally acceptable standard of living. 

Food is another area where consumers are demanding greater choice and convenience. Faith 
Popcorn (1992) points out that consumption of pre-packaged foods is rising and that a Gallup 
Poll indicated that 86% of Americans who eat dinners at home during the week are eating 
pre-packaged foods or take-out foods. If they are not eating pre-packaged foods, then they 
appear to be eating out. One marketing survey determined that on average, people spend 46 
cents of every food dollar on meals and snacks away from home. Convenience stores have 
also increased in number by 50% over the past decade (Duming, 1991). Faith Popcorn 

May 1994 PageBS-S 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



suggests that based on expert opinion, take-out food spending will rise at three times the rate 
of total food spending. 

Dr. Michael Jacobson, founder of the Centre for the Study of Consumerism, discussing the 
problem of consumerism in America, suggested conveniences become necessities, "we get 
addicted to them. The vast majority of Americans don't think they have sumptuous lifestyles; 
they think they're ordinary. But when you compare our lifestyle to that of a Third Wcarld 
country, or even to the United States 40 years ago, its astonishing. But we just take it as the 
norm. To understand, and then try to reverse things is very difficult." (Lapp, 1993, pg 32). 

In his article. Limiting Consumption, Toward a Sustainable Culture (1991), Alan Duming 
examines the factors which have created a consumer society and discusses the challenges 
facing society in attempting to reverse the trend. Mr Duming identifies those factors that he 
feels must change to slowly alter the consumer-focused North American culture. These 
factors include: 

• Advertising 

Access to young consumers must be limited and advertising practices in general 
must change in a more fundamental way; 

• Shopping Culture 

Shopping malls promote increased consumerism. Laws in Britain and Europe 
limit hours when shops are open. The focus needs to move away from the 
shopping culture; 

• Government Policies 

Prices must reflect the true cost of producing goods, to guide the market to less 
damaging forms of consumption; 

• Weak Household and Community Economics 

At a personal level, commitment to non-material fulfillment is hard to sustain 
without the reinforcement of family, friends, and neighbours. Strong local 
institutions may be the only counterweight to vested interests. 

Others have begun to suggest a new era of "deconsumption", "voluntary simplicity", and 
"vigilante consumer" (3SC Monitor, 1992; Duming, 1993; Popcorn, 1991). The forces 
behind this movement vary from a preoccupation with paying debts and getting value for the 
money, to a chosen lifestyle change toward simplicity. Some consumer trends support this 
move. For example, according to the Worldwatch Institute (1994), 1 in 3 people in North 
America now own a bike and the U.S. has 4 million bicycle commuters. The long term effect 
on the composition of the waste stream could be significant if the trend towards 
deconsumption and voluntary simplicity continues. 

The upcoming generation will also play an important role in future waste generation trends. 
Today's children are much more aware of waste reduction and recycling than are the current 
generation of adults. The younger generation have grown up in an age where environmental 
concerns are higher profile, and environmental awareness is at an all rime high in North 
America. It seems reasonable to assume that as these children grow up, they will maintain 
these attitudes and habits into adulthood, and teach these values to the next generations. 

It is difficult to combine the diverse opinions presented above into one vision of the future 
that identified how waste generating habits will change. For this reason, the are presented for 
information only, and not interpreted for numerical analysis in this study. 



May 1994 Page B8-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



IC&I Sector 

Economic Trends . 

One of the major economic trends that will shape long term economic development well into 
the next century is globalization and the shift away from a local economy to a global one. 
The growth of rapid transportation and telecommunications have also helped thrust the world 
into an international economy. Since 1950. world trade has increased from $US 308 billion to 
$US 3.58 trilUon in 1992 (WorldWatch Institute, 1994). 

Globalization has led to the rapid economic growth in newly industrialized countries (NlCs), 
many of which arc located in the Pacific Rim. South and Latin American economies also are 
showing signs of tremendous growth, although are approximately a decade behind the 
countries of the Pacific Rim. Many of these countries arc able to produce goods requiring 
high amounts of low skilled labour, much more cheaply than Western industrialized 
countries. As Western society moves towards an information based economy, there will be a 
shift in the location of traditional manufacturing firms from industrialized to non- 
industrialized countries. Developing countries are expected to move away from a stricUy 
resource based economy to a more diversified one. 

In her book, Shifting Gears, Nuala Beck traces the evolution of the North American 
economy from a conunodity driven economy (1850-1918), to a manufacturing driven one 
(1918-1981) and finally to the technology based economy live in which we presently. The 
concern that developing countries are robbing the Canadian economy of traditional primary- 
manufacturing and resource- based economies is a non-issue according to Ms Beck, since 
70% of Canadians are already employed in the new economy (1993, pg, 43). 

Ms. Beck siiggests that the new economy features four sectors: computers & semiconductors; 
health & medical; communications & telecommunications, and instrumentation. Each sector 
is dominated by the following goods and services: 

• Computers & Semiconductors are dominated by computer equipment, 
semiconductors, software, information services; 

• Health & Medical include medical care & diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, surgical 
& medical instruments, surgical & medical supplies; 

• Communications & Telecommunications include telecommunications services, 
guided missiles & space equipment, radio & microwave communications, and 
entertainment; 

• Instrumentation includes optical instrument & lenses, engineering & scientific 
equipment, process controls, and environmental consulting & equipment. 

Tied in with the new economy is the "information highway", which is envisioned as "a web 
of communication systems that will pump - for a price - huge quantities of text, sound, 
images and video into and out of homes, businesses, factories, hospitals, schools, and 
govenmient offices" (Tapscott, 1994). A significant trend will be the continued emergence 
of a bi-polar service sector of highly rewarded educated management and professional 
service sector combined with a disproportionate numbers of workers in lower paying jobs, 
low income backgrounds, and under-educated workforce. 

As evidence, Ms Beck reports for example that in Canada, from June 1989 to June 1992 the 
number of knowledge related jobs increased by 1.3 million where as the number of 
manufacturing production jobs decreased by 919,0(X) (Beck, 1993). 

May 1994 PageB8-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



The evolution of the Canadian economy will help establish a symbiotic relationship with 
other emerging newly industrialized countries (NICs). As the NIC economies grow they will 
increase demand for high tech, knowledge-driven products and services. These will include 
engineering skills, specialized materials, computer and telecommunication equipment. 

Another trend that may shape our economy and the types of products and services available 
is the incorporation of environmental accounting methods throughout the economy. To date, 
most monetary accounting practices, including the Gross National Product (GNP), ignore the 
environmental, and to a lesser extent, the social costs associated with goods and services. 
Advocates of environmental accounting are putting greater pressures on western governments 
to begin to quantify the effects of resource depletion, pollution, and other non-sustainable 
activities, and build this analysis into accounting practices (Kleiner, 1993). One such attempt 
is the development of the "Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare" (ISEW) system which 
quantifies the costs associated with resource depletion, environmental damage, and 
commuting costs along with wages and prices. 

As environmental accounting practices beconie more widely accepted and adopted, they may 
greatiy impact on the types of goods and services available influence those that appealing to 
die consumer. For example, durable products should be able to better compete with lower 
quality goods as prices come to reflect environmental and social effects associated with 
production. 

Technology Trends * 

The growth of the information age and communications technologies will dominate 
technological development well into the next century. Computers will become even more 
prevalent in both industry and society in general. US consumers alone purchase 12.6 million 
computer annually, and this is expected to double by the year 2000 (Betts, 1994). 

The IC&I sector is bombarded with more technology and "gadgets" than ever before 
creating and supporting a new consumer preference. For example, less than one decade after 
the fax machine was first introduced in the marketplace, it is estimated that Americans owned 
over 5 million fax machines in 1990. The number in 1994 is significantly higher (Naisbitt & 
Aburdene, 1990). 

As we enter the information era, it is anticipated by many, including Bill Gates of Microsoft, 
that the next great boom will be in technology that enables different types of office 
equipment to communicate - i.e. the computer will be able to communicate with the 
photocopier. More sophisticated communication systems will unfold permitting to following 
to happen: 

• rural doctors would be able to consult with urban specialists by sending high- 
resolution images of lab tests or X-rays; 

• auto mechanics would consult with factory technicians on new models through 
interactive television; 

• aerospace researchers thousands of miles apart could instantaneously view and 
discuss sophisticated wind-tunnel computer models (Tapscott, 1994). 

Many futurists believe the electronic age will greatiy reduce or even eliminate the amount the 
use of paper in the office (although, this has not been proven to date). Also, as certain 
resources continue to become more scarce and their prices increase, technologies will 
develop that use these resources more efficiently and reduce waste. This is already 
happening in a number of different industries, as outmoded methods are replaced with state 
of the art equipment which operates more efficientiy. 
May 1994 ' PageBSS 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



The "high-tech" age is predicted to pnxluce more computer and other electronics related 
waste. In a study conducted by members of Carnegie Mellon University, continued 
consumer demand within the United States for faster and fancier computers is expected to 
send 150 million personal computers to landfill by the year 2005 {Bens, 1994). This type of 
equipment quickly becomes obsolete and is replaced. It cannot help but become a major 
element of the waste stream unless the parts can be reused or recycled. Reselling obsolete 
equipment to lesser developed countries is already a thriving new industry and will probably 
continue to grow. 

Also, making the transition to the visionary information era or information highway may 
result in major retrofitting of existing communication systems and infirastructurcs. Advanced 
telecommunication technologies require advanced fibre optic networks to support 
teleconferencing and internetworking systems. Increasingly, companies are likely to iisc 
advanced telecommunication technology to conduct business and visually communicate with 
others all over the world. Already urban centres are grappling with the challenge of 
retrofitting the existing infrastructure to accommodate the information era. With this change, 
waste is will be generated. 

References 

Aburdene, Patricia & John Naisbitt. 1993. Megatrends for Women. Random House of 
Canada, Toronto, Ontario. 

Beck, Nuala. 1993. Shifting Gears, Harper Perennial, Toronto, Ontario. 

Betts, Kellyn S. March/April 1994. "The Coming Green Computers". In E Magazine, volume 
2, pg. 28-36. 

Cronin, Dr. Blaise. 1986. 'Towards Information-Based Economic". In School of Library and 
Ifrformation Science, Indiana University, pg 3-19. 

Durin, Alan Thein. January/February 1993. 'American Excess - Are We Shopping Our Planet 
To Death?". In E Magazine, volume IV, pg 26-32. 

Durin, Alan Thein. May/June 1993. "Can't Live Without It". In World Watch, volume 6, pg 
10-19. • 

Globe & Mail. May 4, 1994. "Waste Not". Globe & Mail, Section D, pg.Dl. 

Isaacs, Colin. April 22, 1994. Financial Post. 

Kleiner, Art. February/March 1993. "The Ant, the Grasshopper, and the GNP ". In Garbage, 
volume V, pg 44-49. 

Naisbitt, John & Patricia Aburdene. 1990. Megatrends 2000. William Morrow and Company, 
Inc., New York, New York. 

Popcorn, Faith. 1 99 1 . The Popcorn Report. Harper Business, New York, New York. 

Tapscott, Donald. May 4, 1994. "Information's brave new road". Globe and Mail, Toronto, 
Ontario. 

Toronto Star. April 21,1 994. 

WorldWatch Institute. September/October 1991. "Junk Food, Junk Food". In World Watch, 
volume 4, pg 7-9. 

WorldWatch Institute. 1994. Vital Signs. World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. 

May 1994 Page B8-9 



SCHEDULE C 
ON-SITE COMPOSTING 



^t «. 



.iUil^j.^i- ■«. . '.A-- 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE C — ON-SITE COMPOSTING 

Introduction 

Composting refers to the process by which organic materials such as food, yard waste, wood, 
etc. are transformed into a stable end product referred to as compost or humus. Two primary 
types of composting are available. These include: 

• On-site composting 

— backyard composting * 

— vermicomposting 

— multi-family/community composting 

— mid-scale on-site; and 

• Centralized composting 

— centralized windrow (leaf and yard) 

— centralized in-vessel. 

This schedule focuses on on-site composting mechanisms that are utilized in residential and 
IC&I waste diversion systems. 

Backyard Composting 

Backyard composters allow householders to carry out this process on their own property, 
thus decreasing the quantity of waste that must be managed at the curb. Materials which are 
most commonly composted in backyard composters include yard waste, leaves, grass 
clippings, food waste, fruit and vegetable waste from the kitchen and, depending on the type 
of composter used, animal and dairy waste. 

The backyard composting process generally requires placing wastes in a covered container, 
keeping the contents moist and well aerated. Watering, turning and adding dirt and some 
yard waste are required periodically. Various types of containers are available commercially 
or can be made with simple materials. Different designs facilitate aeration or limit possible 
problems. There aie also digester/composters which employ an anaerobic process (absence 
of oxygen). Vermicomposters which use worms to break down organic waste are suitable for 
indoor use and for households such as apartments with limited space and low or zero 
generation of yard waste. 

Although backyard composting is a relatively low-tech method for handling significant 
quantities of organic wastes, the potential impact of this method on reducing the waste stream 
to be disposed is now being recognized. 

There are several advantages to backyard composting including the following: 

• the amount of organic matter collected at the curbside is reduced, resulting in 
savings in transport, processing and disposal costs; 

• there is a usable end product for participants which can decrease spending on 
fertilizers and soil conditioners; 

• The process is low-tech and inexpensive in relation to other waste reduction and 
processing options; 

May 1994 PageOT 



Ministry of Envirotanent and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



• It presents a good opportunity for increasing public awareness and understanding 
of waste management issues; 

• It offers a simple opportunity for individuals to get involved in waste 
management 

There are several factors to be considered in establishing backyard composting programs, 
including: 

• the municipality's desired level of involvement in promotion, education, support, 
cost sharing and in distribution of composters; 

• homeowner level of commitment to altering routines. Composting requires an 
individual to change waste management behaviour from putting waste in the 
garbage to actually source separating selected organic materials; 

• the choice of composter, determined in part by the specific needs of the 
municipality and preferences of residents. For example, some composters only 
handle vegetable matter. Also, yard wastes may overwhelm composter capacity; 

• the specific situation of multi-family dwellings. Greater effort may be required by 
residents and they may not benefit directly from use of the end product. A recent 
study of a denwnstration project in Waterloo reported positive results, particularly 
with townhouse complexes. Suggestions for successful programs included a 
strong educational program, compatibility with existing garbage/recycling 
programs, flexibility, and a personalized approach, as multi-unit dwellings have 
varying populations and site characteristics. 

Components of a Backyard Composting Program 

Various options and success factors should be considered in implementing a backyard 
composting program. These include: 

• selling or providing compost units. Some communities have provided compost 
units free of charge while others have charged a nominal fee. Participation in 
programs using either method has been high. From surveys it appears that people 
are prepared to pay for composters although some subsidy is required (Compost 
Management, 1992a, BioCycle, 1993, Maclaren, 1990, Composter's Journal, 
1992, Kirkby, 1992); 

• distributing compost units. Some communities have delivered units to residents 
while others have made the units available for collection. Both methods appear to 
have achieved high participation. The highest panicipation rates have been 
achieved in programs in which there was door-to-door distribution of compost 
units (Compost Management, 1992a, BioCycle, 1993, Maclaren, 1990, 
Composter's Journal, 1992. Kirkby. 1992); 

• forcing increased use of composters by imposing bans or limitations on certain 
materials being sent to landfill. These could include bans on leaves or grass. 
Various communities, including Waterloo, Kitchener and Woolich have 
implemented such bans. Also, two communities in Halton have recently banned 
the disposal of grass in landfills; 

May 1994 Page C-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



• promoting backyard composting through various media such as "how-to" 
brochures, posters, public transit ads, newspaper ads, radio ads etc.; 

• publishing written on-going education materials such as newsletters and 
brochures; 

• providing training and outreach programs including the training of volunteers, 
permanent displays, periodic workshops and seminars. An example is the Master 
Composter Program in Toronto. This is funded partially by the Ontario Ministry 
of the Environment and Energy and coordinat&d by the Recycling Council of 
Ontario. It involves a comprehensive 40-hour training program for volunteers 
including instruction in composting theory, choice of composting bins, 
troubleshooting, use of finished compost, effective public promotion and 
education techniques. Volunteers agree to provide 40 hours of community 
extension for which they are provided training materials such as displays and 
literature; 

• implementation of a grasscycling program which could be established in 
conjunction with a backyard composting program. This involves leaving grass 
clippings on the lawn. It is an environmentally sound method of handling some 
lawn waste in the backyard rather than requiring municipal collection and 
processing. 

Experience with Backyard Composting Programs 

Many districts and municipalities throughout Ontario have established backyard composting 
programs and have reported positive results (Compost Management, 1990, Compost 
Management, 1992a, BioCycle, 1993, Maclaren, 1990, Composter's Journal, 1992, RIS and 
H. Sutcliffe, 1993). A summary of information about backyard composting programs is 
presented in Table C.l. All GTA regions are actively involved in promoting and supporting 
the use of backyard composters. 

All Regions have included the provision of free or subsidized compost or digester units. 
Some were distributed door-to-door while others were made available for pick-up. 

Participation 

Voluntary participation in backyard composting activities conventionally is considered to 
level at between 20 and 30 percent of households in Ontario communities. Milton currently 
has distributed composters to around 22% to 23% of households with minimal promotion and 
education (Pantonio, 1993). However, other municipalities have realized significandy higher 
participation rates (Centre & South Hastings Recycling Board, 1994, RIS and H. Sutcliffe. 
1993, BioCycle, 1993). This is generally due to greater efforts at promotion and distribution. 
For example, Milton reports little or no promotion or education programs. In contrast, the 
Central and South Hastings Waste Management Board in 1992 had achieved between 65% 
and 70% householder uptake of backyard composters in its 15 municipalities with an 
aggressive door-to-door distribution program. A survey (involving inspection of composters) 
showed that 82% of composters were being used effectively, resulting in an effective 53% 
participation rate. It was estimated also that, conservatively, 85% of all residents (an 
additional 32%) had expressed willingness to compost (Centre & South Hastings Recycling 
Board, 1994, RIS and H. Sutcliffe. 1993, BioCycle, 1993, Kirkby, 1992). 

In other pilot projects with a strong promotional component, acceptance of composters 
generally has been high, ranging from 75% in Durham (Compost Management Associates 

May 1994 "" KgeCl 



Table C.l 
Summary of Scttcted Backjrard Composting Programmes 



■5 



I 




Qui. 



HiaiKlM-Wntwolh, OnL 



Mtfr* Tonnls, Out 



Do 



ptiM 



(60tU*«r 



•iMudia e.ao(».ooD 

ittUvcry 17,000 



Si«pkl[-lip, <3«ikll<ciKl 



MHhiiii Out* 



MlBhuafi, CM. 



NncKll*, OaL 



0Mtwi,Oat 



ni**rlakO*L 



Wjlvla^Oiit 



F"" 



I CgMljr, Cnl 



hhfu CowtT, VkiliiU 



ClmdiK !><■ Aii(cl<« 



MMTtaa ComM;, Ortfoa 



CillfH*!* 



Suti Mgnka, Cil 



Sultk, Wuhln^m 



pU" 



p""» 



ptta 



ifwiMi 






__^ 






uaina ki fnpcr, ptck -*p 



door^tD-door ^Uvirlr 



(n|:4cloip 



£S«u>TO«DliU 



liivfeilloa m *» u hiK diltand - 



pUa 



pua 



kw bklt/akllfll 



wkMv ua^B md baa bti othir 
dmibatm 



At-eaa Hia tevagb tool ftom 



•rki^ (not ckar I 



(kxa'tD-<k« ihUn^ (mi •lib Df) 



aM^dlf ar oo^k 
nuiiikii(l) 



OwtOWOO 






SI3.00 



|V Ah ZCXOOD 



IWtl) 



OOhsMIMO 



□vci 10 )«an 



(I jmllUac 

p<i>.tMO.00O 

Chy Ebhki 

IMO.O0O 



lltJ.OaOaddl 



MOee and aall 



%\l1i/UMMm 



\31iai\3 



21tlalil 

(in«a n p** (iqi, 

Znntw) 

1)41 



llO-lXkilMd 



4oaa(f<v<i) 



7i»or 

Iboae iia&1to«»d hi 
aaa(2) 



IJW-di 



1.000 



l.lUIJtof 
7,300 haKi 



ti.OOO ' anl 
IMl, plH 
7,JO0 19W 



SIO'UO 



•aiBbridyi>< 

11} 






U mODOta 



tlMoipnl 
S2flL00Qf» 



plalUciki). 
(USa41/li>t 






u.oaa 

1»3)«) 



3M laat 

J2I. read 



fUtlOBU *tllt*a 



(2) 



Not Avaltabia 



nAldcR 49d coovollad 



>uk|/oaB(Vyi, 






)Wi^udi/r 



ml 

•aaafQ 



Padai kack aaltM 



laport ( C— a A Savft 

Itotkwi RxTcKM ■<>■<)■ 

IM4)RC0U|ida' 

CM/Wo»l*« 



Oak. R, Mardi, mi 



1 lkf>ck,JaiimiDd. 

llik*oWartaDa|a - 

Hana C^a^ Ft]pv PanJc 

Sai«ay.lVklM9 



l<M.Ck)fiJMlBUaav 



■taCjicla. Jn IM> 



•BKr*y*(batM*nto 
asi>*lthad 



Na A'altoHa 



Nol AnllaUt 



KadUB»-Riaaat.Oan 
2. nasi] Da< l««l 



■k>C>cla - A^ an 



■kiC>ck,JaDlMJ 



Rauufla Hal ja Ih^ Api. 
1»« 



tkiCyck. tm IM) 



■loCyck.JalM) 



Raaoans Aaqvltai Apr, 



I ■JsCyi:Ja,JallH) 
1 Nan n^K - Satfll't 



CI . 

'^ S 
*■ 3 

ft •- 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis -Service Technical Appendix 



Ltd., 1992a, 1993), to 84% in Waterloo (Waterloo, 1992). Even in those programs which 
charged a nominal fee (e.g. Waterloo, Metro Toronto), acceptance was high (Waterloo, 1992, 
Maclarcn, 1990, Ferguson, 1993). In Pickering, there was initially only 9.5% acceptance 
when a brochure, delivered to homes, was used to promote interest in trying a backyard 
composter. However, two later campaigns with door-to-door promotion and delivery 
achieved significantly higher acceptance - 74%. Surveys of a pilot program in Mississauga 
showed that 75% to 80% of residents were effectively using composters (Proctor & Redfem, 
1994). 

Subsidizing the cost of composters to residents appears to encourage paniciparion. 82% of 
respondents to an initial survey in Metro Toronto said they would not have purchased a 
composter if it had not been offered at a subsidized price (Maclaren, 1990), whereas in 
Pickering, where composters were provided free of charge, 80% of those surveyed said they 
would have been willing to pay for the composter at a subsidized price (Compost 
Management, 1992a). 

The 1992 survey of residents in Metro Toronto, who had accepted a composter from the City 
over the previous three years, indicated a high on-going participation rate. Of those who 
responded to the survey (60%), 98% were still using their composter (Ferguson, 1993). In 
the Waterloo program, 82% of households in the pilot area accepted composters and after 1 1 
months, 97% of those responding to the survey (36%), were still using them (Waterloo, 
1992). In Pickering, after an initial acceptance of composters of 74% during the first year, 
participation had fallen to 78% of those accepting a unit (58% of the pilot households) 
(Compost Management, 1992a). 

Waste Diversion Rates Achieved 

From the survey of the YIMBY program in Centre and South Hastings, it was estimated that 
die average diversion of organic waste through backyard composting was in the range of 132 
kg/hh/year to 215 kg/hh/year for all households with composters (Central and South Hastings 
Recycling Board, 1994). The pilot program in Mississauga demonstrated an annual diversion 
of organics of between 150 kg and 190 kg, between 110 kg and 120 kg of food waste and 
between 40 kg and 70 kg of yard waste (Proctor & Redfem, 1994). 

Reported diversion rates vary from 3% to 32% of the residential waste stream in a sample of 
programs studied. In Mississauga test areas, it was estimated that 3% to 5% of the residential 
waste stream was being diverted by home composting from all households (Proctor & 
Redfern, 1994). The Central and Soutii Hastings Waste Management Board estimates 
diversion in their program at 13% of residential solid waste (RSW) (BioCycle, 1993). 
Diversion varied from 244 kg per household per year in Pickering, estimated to represent 
approximately 15% diversion, to 336 kg per household per year in Newcastie, representing 
an estimated 32% of RSW (this was reported for one of the heavier times of the year for yard 
waste generation and may account for the higher diversion rate) (Compost Management, 
1992a, 1992). 

in Metro Toronto food (vegetable) wastes were reported to have the highest compost rates, 
above 80% throughout the four seasons. Garden wastes were the next highest, followed by 
lawn clippings and leaves (Maclaren, 1990). 

Costs 

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy will cover two thirds of the cost of 
composters/digesters and in some cases, will support promotion and education. 

May 1994 PageCT 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The costs of diverting waste through backyard composters vary, but are significantly lower 
than other waste diversion costs, on a $/tonne or $/household basis. 

Cost estimates for an estimated home composting program in Mississauga were in the range 
of $45/tonne to $55/tonne (Proctor & Redfem, 1994). For the YIMBY program, cost 
estimates were in the range of $23/tonne to $37/tonne (Centre and South Hastings Recycling 
Board, 1994). 

The Newcastle results indicated a waste diversion cost of $18.75/tonne. This is based on a 
ten-year amortization period for each composter and does not include government subsidies. 
Costs typically range from $15 to $50/unit when bought in bulk (RIS, Sutcliffe, 1993). In 
Pickering (Compost Management, 1992a), the waste diversion cost was estimated at 
$24.32/tonne. "ITic latter was based on an overall cost of $59.35 per composter, of which 
65% covered the cost of the composter itself, 22% covered administration, promotion and 
education and, 13% covered project monitoring (such extensive monitoring of pilot projects 
would not normally be incurred.) 

The Metro Toronto program in 1992 cost a total of $2.7 million. 67% was borne by the 
Province, primarily for the cost of the composters. The rest was paid by Metro Toronto, 
consisting of the remaining 20% for composters and 13% for administration, of which 4% 
went to public education (BioCycle, 1993). 

Issues . 

Some problems were experienced with use of the composters. These problems varied 
depending on composter type and geographic location. Surveys of residents have identified 
the following concerns and problems with backyard composters (Compost Management, 
1992, 1992a, Waterloo, 1992, Ferguson, 1993, Maclaren, 1990): 

• insects, particularly flies, in and around the composters; 

• freezing in winter, 

• size limitations; 

• poorly-fitting and insecure lids; 

• odours; 

• scavenging anirnals. 

It is not clear from surveys whether long-term participation would be affected by these 
concerns. Only 3% of participants surveyed in Metro Toronto cited these as reasons to stop 
using the compost units. Freezing and size limitation were noted to temporarily stop use 
(Maclaren. 1990). 

Social Acceptability 

Despite such problems, the vast majority of participants in backyard composting programs 
have been strongly supp>ortive of the concept. All respondents to the Newcastie survey 
reported that they would recommend backyard composting to their neighbours (Compost 
Management, 1990). 

Composting docs not seem to be viewed as a nuisance. While 40% of respondents to the 
Metro Toronto survey reported having difficulty with tending the composting pile, few had 
difficulty with other composting tasks (Maclaren, 1990). In Newcastle, only one participant 
described composting as time-consuming or troublesome (Compost Management, 1990). 



May 1994 Page C-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Many people had been composting prior to the launch of major demonstration projects and 
composting programs. In Toronto, it was found that about one third of those surveyed had 
been composting some of their organic wastes prior to receiving a composter from the City 
(Maclaren, 1990). In Pickering, 14% reported composting prior to the demonstration project 
(Compost Management, 1992a). 

Most respondents to the Metro Toronto survey said they would continue to compost using 
their backyard composter even if curbside collection of food wastes was provided (Ferguson, 
1993). ; 

Residents with backyard composters still participate in separate collection of yard waste at 
the curbside. In Metro Toronto, 70% of respondents still put some yard waste out for 
collection in separate collection while 21% still put yard waste out with regular waste. This 
is thought to be affected to some extent by the size of composters, which cannot handle the 
quantity of yard wastes generated, and by yard wastes which are not suitable for the 
composters, requiring processing such as chipping (Ferguson, 1993). 

One third to one half of participants surveyed in Newcastle found that using the composter 
tended to influence their buying habits to reflect greater conservation values (Compos^ 
Management, 1990). 

Other On-Site Composting 

Several new techniques are being piloted and utilized for on-site composting in multi-family 
residential and commercial settings. These projects are innovative and in early stages of 
development. The projects completed to date focus on maximizing participation in 
composting and identifying community benefits. Systematic studies of diversion have not 
yet been completed and estimates of diversion potential are inconclusive. There is a sense 
that participation in these programs does contribute an effective means of diverting further 
segments of residential and IC&I waste. However, it is difficult to efficiently monitor 
participation and diversion, and it has not yet been done, 

A Report by The Recycling Council of Ontario presents an inventory of the types of 
programs presenUy in existence for multi-family and on-site IC&I composting. A summary 
of information that has been obtained from various studies of multi-family composting are 
presented in Tables C.2. to C.7 at the end of this chapter. The following presents an 
overview of findings from observation of multi-family residential and IC&I composting 
programs. , 

Vermicomposting - 

Vermicomposting (or worm composting) is ah option for residents who may have limited 
space, or no access to an outdoor area for composting (e.g. apartment dwellers). Several 
worm composting units are presently available, however, worm composting has yet to 
receive strong public acceptance. The worm composter is versatile, in that it can be located 
outdoors in ^e summer, and must be brought in during the winter. It requires harvesting 
every three months and produces a high quality end product. 

The Region of Peel conducted a study of vermicomposting by providing 250 units to multi- 
family residents. From this study, technical problems (i.e. with fruit flies and overloaded 
units) and problems with public acceptance were identified. Findings of this study showed 
that vermicomposting in multi-family units may have a relatively low waste diversion impact 
of only about 28.5 kg/hh/yr. 

May 1994 ' PageCJ 



Ministry of Envu'onmenl and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Balcony units (including vcimicompostCT Biobins and Envirocycic units) were distributed to 
approximately 100 units in Barrie, Ontario. Acceptance was generally good during initial 
protnotion in May 1993, but has dropped since. Subsequent surveys show that there have 
been problems, and that while most composters are used, finished compost product has been 
minimal (Collins, 1994). 

It is believed that technical problems with vennicomposting may be overcome through public 
education. However, public acceptance may remain an issue (Recycling Council of Ontario 
(RCO), 1993). 

Multi-familytCommumty Composting 

Several studies of multi-family composting have been carried out, particularly in Ontario. 
The largest co-ordinated study of multi-family units was a year-long project initiated in 1990. 
Findings of this study arc presented in Table C.2. In addition to this large co-ordinated study, 
4 independent projects were assessed. Findings of these projects are presented in Table C.3. 

The Metro Toronto study involved providing twenty-five 3-bin units to multi-family 
residents in the Region. Bins were purchased at a cost of $150 per unit to the buildings. The 
objective of this study was to test the 3-bin system for use in multi-family dwellings. 

The study sample included ten co-ops, one university building and one community agency, 
and two privately owned apartment buildings. The mix included high-rise, low-rise and town 
house buildings. The project was largely run by volunteers on the principle of community 
development. The projects were varied in terms of the level of encouragement and support 
provided to residents to encourage composting. 

The Metro Toronto project was evaluated by organizers as a success in that residents did 
participate, achieving an unspecified level of waste diversion and increasing awareness. 
Some problems with composting odours, contamination and lack of participation were noted. 
Volunteers also noted concerns with labour involved in maintaining bins. Residents involved 
in the studies were asked to measure participation for six months, but few actually did so. 
Volunteers were hesitant to jeopardize composting participation by promoting this as a 
requirement. 

A participation rate of 30% to 50% was reported for most bins utilized in the Metro Study. 
However, this must be recognized as a broad estimate only. Diversion was not generally 
measured in the study (RCO, 1993). For those who did not compost, inconvenience and the 
extra effort required were recognized as important barriers. 

Another one-year, multi-family composting demonstration was carried out in Waterloo, 
Ontario, beginning in June, 1991. Findings of this study are presented in Table C.4, The 
purpose of this study was to identify successful composting systems for multi-unit purposes. 
Two townhouses, two apartments and a fifth, unspecified dwelhng, were included in the 
study. As in the Metro Toronto project, volunteers were responsible for maintaining the 
program, and were advised by the City of Waterloo and a Citizens' Recycling Committee. 
Composting bins were provided to participants free of charge. 

This study tested 2 and 3-bin composter designs, with one single-unit bin provided for 
overflow. After one year, two sites reported dramatic waste reduction, and the overall 
project was rated as a success at three of the five sites. The other two rated the project as a 
moderate success. Again, convenience to residents appears to have been a critical factor in 
promoting waste diversion through composting. 

May 1994 Page C-8 



Table C.2 

Metro Toronto 3-Bin Pilol Projecl 

Twenly-five 3-biii coinpostcn. are located at housing co-ope«lives and apaitment buildings in Mem, Toronto. Tlie bins at each sitr arc maintained by resident 
volunteers or a Compost Commitiec. 



LocatloQ 


Dwcllini Type 


Composler Tjpt 


Program Start 
Dale 


rartidpaOon 
Levd 


Methods or KducBlton 


Comincnls 


Bain Co-op 


Townhoiuei, 254 
units around 7 
RotirlyanJi. much 
gic«n space 


Seven 3-bins 


1991 


50^60* 


Workshop by Master Comptnter, signs on 
bins, bpt in newsleller, phone Iree for 
troubleshooting 


Residents of each counyard are 
responsible for maintaining their own bin. 
Samples of compost were displayed in Co- 
op office. CorT»st used on site for 
gardening. 


Harbninide 
Co-op 


TownJwuiet, 3- 
•mry. 35 uniu. 
much given ipace 


3-bill 


1991 


75% 


Meebngs, flyers, signs on bins. 


Volunteer-managed prograia Cotrrpoit 
used on site on gardens. 


Shalom IIouk 


Hosidwidi 
communily kitchen 
and b«-weekly 
market 


3-btn 


Summer 1990 


n/a 


Workshop led by Metro suft. 


Bin is maintained by volunteer coirmuniiy 
gardening group. Conroit used on the 
camir^unity garden. 


SpruoeCouit 
Co-op 


Townhouiei, 78 
anili, much green 
ipace 


3-bin 


November 
1990 


25% 


Workshop by Master Compoater, lileratuie 
to all residents, sign on bin. reminJeisin 
newsletter. 


Odour complanu led to formatioa of 
after the bin. r^wnpostis used on-site 


Swuuea Village 
Co-op 


buldingt, 96 units, 
little gpccn tpace 


32Un 


1991 


50% 


Workshop by Metro staff, letianders m 
newsletter, q & a sessions at the tin. 


Managed by voluntecti. Rat probiem was 
solved by lining the bin with wire mesh. 


OtkSL Co-op 


TownhouKi A two 
highriiea. 149 

jiiiu,ljnlec>w> 
■pace, co-of) with 
paid caiTtaker 


3-bin 


Fall 1991 


30% 


Pamphleu to all members, presentations at 
meeting]. 


Managed by volunteen and caretaker. Bin 
was relocated due to odour pniUen*. 
Compost was dug into plant beds. 


Chwtei Sl Co-op 


Two higb-iiiei, 
7t3unitt, nogieen 
tptccitudentand 
social housing 


Two 3-bins 


1991 


23-30 tenants 


Brochures, article in ncwsleiecr, poster in 
lobby calling for volunteers. 


Bins were not nnainlained after tiw key 
volunteer moved. Bins were removed due 
to rodent infestatiois. 


OiwNewbolm 
Ro)ul 


Low-iise rental 
apartment building 
with 27 uniu, UiUe 
green space 


3-bin 


1990 


40^50% 


Utenttne to all tenants, signs on bins. 


Program managed by superintendent 
Compost used on-site in flower beds. 


Kalimt Co-op 


Seven low-iise 
butldingi, 113 
utiili, much green 
space, piivaie 
waste cdleclian 


TwoJ-bini 


1990 


50% 


L^etlcrs to residents, workshop by Metro 
sUtlT, pof ten. 


Managed by volunieen. Compost used on- 
site on gardens and as topp-dressing on 

lawns. 



>3 



?5 

as. 



J*! ..V£ ^i Ut 



lH f. 






Anne Maie >liU 
Co-op 


Hi|h-h«e and 
(ownhouiea, 135 
iiniti, little gnen 

■PKC 


3 bin 


1990 


I0» 


Newslcacr aiticlcs, flycn. 


Managed by one volunteer. Low level ol 
flower beds. 


Notrii CicKcnl 
Co-op 


Street- long co^ 
oflen, 6-unit 
buUingi, much 
giccnspioe 


3bin 


1990 


«» 


Lilcralure lo all co^op members, woid-of- 
mouih. 


Managed by volunteen. Compoat used on- 
site. 


llMth Sl Co-cp 


Low-hie, 49 uniu, 
tittle green space, 
priviie 


3-bin 


1990 


30% 


Literature 10 ail coop mcmberi 


Sonic difficulty in getting volunlecn to 
look after the bin. Compost is dug into 
herb and flower gardens. 


York (Jnivernty 


Hi|h-ii*ei. much 
green space, not 
■crved by 
inunidpal 

coUecQon 


Five 3-bini 


Fail 199! 


10% 


Workshop, word-of mouth, Qyers 


Managed by volunteen and university 
grounds sta/T. Difficulty in maintain 
volunteer involverrcnL Bins damaged by 
wind. 


Beverley Sullivan 
Co-op 


Townbouwi. 8 
oniti, much gicen 

ipKX 


3-bin 


1991 


100% 


Literiiture to all members, word-of-mouth. 


Managed by leading volunteer who 
gradually involved all residents. Compost 
uicd cn-ttle- 


Source: RCO. 1993 









g 5 





V 




Ts 




*. 


^ 


m 




J 


n 


*■ 




1 


n. 




r 


a 


■■ 


"• 




1 


4 


? 




■1 


H 


*!3 



Table CJ 
Other Projects in Metro Toronto 

TTiis lablc lists a sampling of sites where groups have set up their own composting projects outside of the municipally-sponsored program. 



Location 



Field$lone Co op 



Ctwihri Co-op 



htugh GanKT 
Co-op 



Siulter Puk 



Dwelling Type 



67-unit co-op 



Low-rise, 84 units 
in three tniildings, 
much green space 



Eighi-sioiy co-op 
with I St uniu 



Bin is in a vacint- 

lot-tumed- 

community-paik 



Com poster Type 



Two Eco- 
Balonce bins 



Source: RCO. 1993 



3 -bin 



3 -bin 



3 -bin 



Program Start 
Date 



Fall 1991 



July 1990 



August 1989 



June 1992 



Participation 
Level 



30% 



30% 



not known 



10 IS house- 
holds 



Methods of Education 



Co-op newslener, flyers on bulletin board, 
word-of-inoulh. 



Newsletter, posters in lobby, literature lo 

alt members. 



Ryets, meetings, word -of mouth. 



I>oor-to-door conuct. brochures, signs 
posted around the neighbourhood. 



Comments 



Managed by one vol un leer who has found 
Ihe material difficult w turn in diese bins. 
Compost used on the lawn on sandy soil. 



Managed by one volunteer. Finished 
compost is "almost fought over". 



Managed by a Compost Commille 
Compost is used on site. 



Managed by the Compost Commiuee of 
the Saulter Sueet Residents Association. 



S3 



I ■< 

- n 
? I. 



I 



Table C,4 

Waterloo Demonstration Project 

The Waierloo multi-residcnttal dcmonstraiion project was a joint efrort of the City of Waterloo and ihe Waterloo Citizens' Recycling Committee. Five 
Dwellings of various types were provided with 3 -bin and backyard composiers. 









Localton 


Dwelling Typ« 


Composter Type 


Program Start 
Dale 


Parddpallon 
Level 


Methods of Education 1 Commcub 


283 Sandownc 
Drive 


condominiums, 36 
unils, much green 
space, managed by 
a privite oompiny, 
private conlractor 
collecb garlnge 


Two 3bins 


Summer 1990 


50* 


Pamphlets, general meeting. 


Managed t>y volunteers. Compost is used 
on gardens and reused in the bia Waste 
collection costs reduced by half. 


Robbiwood 


TownhouM 
condomiRiums, 1 16 
units, much green 
spice, private 
garbage collection 


Two 3-biiu and 
composiers 


1990 


50-75% 


NewsleUer, brochures, flyers, meetings. 


Mnaged by volunteer committee. 
Compost used on-site. Waste collection 
costs reduced by S200/monih. 


133 l^inoolii RoKl 


6-iloty rental 
building, 46 unitt. 
-Y- housing for 
women, fome 
green space 


3-bin 


1991 


30% 


Ifulnictions given at tenants' meetings. 


Managed by one volunteer. Compost used 
on-site in gardens. 


400 Pvkside Drive 


High-rise. 108 
units, rental 
buildin|t 


3-bin 


1990 


Tiot known 


Meeting, liternu-e to tenants, notices, 
word-of-mouth 


Managed by volunleert. Each household 
given a key to access the bin. 


223 Bcfijamiii 
Road 


Townhouse 
cofidominiumi, 84 
units, some green 
space, privtte 
garbage collection 


One 2-bin unit 

wtdfoiir 

backyard 

composters 


1990 


50» 


Newsletter, word-of-mouth 


Managed by volunteers. Compost is 
spread on fioweitwds and lawns of 
common areas. 


Source: RCO. 1993 ' ' | 



CI 



(^ 5 



I- 



1^ 



I 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Paiticipation was surveyed, but not accurately measured. After one year, participation was 
estimated to range from 10% to 29%, although it is estimated that it could be increased to 
50% with extensive prtMnotion and education efforts. A waste diversion rate was not 
measured (Farkas, 1992; RCO, 1993). 

In Barrie, one large building has been operating a centralized composter (Envirocycle 5000) 
in the garbage room of the building. Residents have been diverting approximately 90 kg to 
115 kg per week of raw food waste, and producing approximately 34 kg per week of finished 
compost. It is estimated that of the 110 units in the building, 35% to 40% have been 
participating (Collins, 1994). 

Several other studies have been conducted to identify potential impacts of multi-family 
composting on waste diversion, using a variety of different bins and techniques (including 
vermicomposting) in various types of buildings. These include studies in Mississauga, 
Markham, Thomhill, Kingston, Vancouver, and Europe, some of which are currently in 
progress. Findings of the Ontario projects are presented in Table C.5, and findings of 
projects reported in Vancouver and Europe are shown in Table C.6. 

These projects utilized varying types of bins, placed different emphasis on and dedicated 
various levels of resources to resident education. Combined with different levels of 
maintenance and types of source separation, these factors are likely to reflect in varied results 
of the projects. Several of the projects have reported technical problems with odours and 
flies. As in the Metro Toronto and Waterloo studies, participation is reported to be affected 
by convenience and residents' levels of interest in waste diversion. Results (and anticipated 
results of the studies in progress) do not appear to contradict findings of studies conducted in 
Metro Toronto and Waterloo. 

A project undertaken by muld-family residents in Zurich, Switzerland should be highlighted 
for its apparent successes. It involves 13,000 to 14,000 households (or 10% of the city total). 
The residents volunteer time to maintain several compost piles, with one resident assuming 
responsibility as lead caretaker. The city provides collection containers and land, leaving the 
bulk of the initiative to residents. The project is encouraged through local regulations that 
support composting, with a new requirement that landlords provide a place for composting 
activities. This program, which began in 1985, continues to operate successfully (RCO, 
1993). 

From the evidence presented to date, it is beheved that, despite initial skepticism, multi- 
family composting can be an effective practice for increasing waste diversion if it is carefully 
monitored and units are maintained. Participation levels and success rates are closely linked 
with effective education programs. Participation rates tend to increase over time, unless 
education is not effective and active. The RCO report, which documents findings of multi- 
family composting projects, recommends more detailed study of diversion potential (RCO, 
1993). 

Sitmmary of Multi-family Composting Data 

Data collected to date suggest that participation in neighbourhood and community based 
composting programs by multi-family residents is lower than in single-family households. 
An estimate of 54 kg/hh/yr for multi-family composting of food waste in central units has 
been assumed for this study, based on the results of a study conducted in Barrie, Ontario, 
where multi-family households participated in a pilot project to compost food waste (Collins, 
1994). 

May 1994 ' PageClJ 



5 



Table C.5 
Other Projects in Ontario 



"0 



Location 


Dwelling Type 


Compoater Type 


Program Start 
Date 


l>artlclpalk>ii 
Uvcl 


Methods of Education 


Conimcnts 


Mississaugi 


Hi^-iise, 20 
slories 


(material 

composed off ■ 

sile) 


19^1 


Very low 


Meeting coiled for residents, information 
provided. 


Experiment to test collection. Tenants 
canied food waste in plastic buckets tn ■ 
can outside of the building. 


Barrie 


Various nnilli-unit 
dwellings 


Woun bins. 

balcony bins, 

backywd bins, 3 

bins, Inal 

operation of 

Envirocycle 5000 


Launched in 
Fall 1992 


ApiiROxiniately 

100 units with 

balcony units, 

and 35% to 

40% of uniu in 

one building 

using 

Envirocycle 

5000 


City waste management newsletter, 
presentations to building owners and 
managers, information package to 
residents, display in common area of 
buildings. 


Surveys of residents with individuitl units 
have indicated poor results while the 
centralized unit has been operating 
successfully, diverting 90 kg to 1 1 5 kg per 
week of raw food waste from 30% to 40% 
of units in the building. 


Maifcham 


High-rise, S2 units, 
privaiely-owned 
building with 
private waste 
collection 


3 bin 


1991 


40% 


Informiiion meeiings, reminder noiicci. 
word-of-moulh 


Program initiated by the property 
maiagemeni company, oomposter 
maintained by superintendent 


Thomhill 


High-rise. 140 
uniu, privaiely- 
owned building 
with private waste 
collection 


3bin 


Summer 1992 


Not yet known 


Informaiion meeting 


Composter is mainumed by 
supoinlendent 


Kingston 


High rise, 123 
units, rental 
building on large 
lot 


6 F.co-GuBrdiaii 

bins 


August 1991 


75% 


Meeting, delivery of notices, *ord-of ■ 
mouth 


Program initiated iikI managed by the 
supermtcndenu Tenants place food waste 
in a collection bin in the garbage room. 
After minor vandalism, bin doon were 
attached with chains. Compost is used for 
landscaping and given to tenants for their 
plmts. 


Source: RCO, 1993 



la: 



§ 









U 



I 



I 



"3 



Table C.6 
Multi-Residential Projects in Vancouver, Helsinki and Zurich 



LocalloD 


DwcUlDg Type 


Com poster Type 


Program Start 
Date 


Participation 
I^vcl 


Methods of Education 


Comments 


Conun unity 
Alternatives Co op, 
Vancouver 


3-slory co-op 


Homemade 

rotating barrel in 

basement 


1983 


100% 


Not known 


Initial odour and fly problems. 
Modifications improved the system's 
performance. Compost is used on-site on 
fhiit trees and gardens. 


HelsinVi, Finland 


11 ipartmenl 
blocks at Helsinki 
University 


600-liue 

insulated steel 

bins 


1987 


40% 


Guide called "How ui Compost on Blocks 
of Flats • 


Bins are maintained by volunteer compost 
caretakers at each site; duties are rotated 
among a few people. 


Zurich, Switzerimd 


Various multi- 
res tdential 
buildings 


Collection bin 
and 3 or 4 piles 
for composting 


1985 


10% of 
population 


City staff provides in formalion, advice and 
site visits 


A volunteer resident leads each compost 
project. Maintenance of the pile is shared 
by participating households. Compost is 
used by residents on their balcony gardens 
and window boxes. 


Source; RCO. 1993 



f4 



0( 



2 

to 

Is I 






I^ ^ 



a 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Mid-Scale On-Site Composting 

Like multi-family composting, Mid-Scale On-Sitc Composting is in an early stage of 
development. A summary of several projects is presented in Table C.7. At present, mid- 
scale facilities are reported to have high capital costs (in the range of $5,000 to $25,000). 
However, the facilities arc easy to operate and one type presently on the market may be 
located indoors. Preliminary studies show that mid- scale, on-site composting projects may 
have the potential to process large amounts of waste, from about 45 to 90 kg/day (RCO, 
1993). However, due to lack of systematic data collection, results are currently considered 
inconclusive. For that reason, these figures are not factored in waste diversion estimates for 
the GTA. 

Experience with Mid-Scale On-Site Composting 

Composting units presently in use for Mid Scale On-Site Composting include the: 

• Mid-Scale Rotating Barrel 

A "home-built" composting barrel has been operating at Ecology Park in Toronto 
since August, 1992. This unit receives food waste from two neighbouring natural 
food stores. The unit is a cylinder with doors on both ends, that rotates on casters 
and can be manually rotated. The unit can receive up to approximately 3 tonnes 
per year. 

Material is kept inside the chamber and composted with wood chips for up to four 
weeks, at which time it is turned into a vermicompost barrel. From start to finish, 
the process requires approximately 6 weeks to produce a finished compost 
product (RCO, 1993). 

• 3-Bin Units 

Bell Canada in Etobicoke is using a 3-bin wooden composter system to compost 
food waste from the cafeteria and all 12 floors of an office building. Together, the 
composters receive approximately 35 tonnes of source separated compostable 
material/yr and are composted with leaves, soil, and wood chips for bulking when 
necessary. Material is aerated by turning, and the finished compost product is 
used on-site or sold by a charitable organization for fundraising (RCO, 1993). 

• Mid- Scale Vermicomposting 

Harbourfront, in Toronto, installed a vermicomposting system in August 1992, 
which is used to divert food waste from three quick-service food outlets from 
disposal. Food waste is source separated, and meat scraps are removed. Food 
waste is mechanically shredded before being fed to the worms. 

The system is made up of 16 worm bins that are enclosed in an insulated metal 
container with hinged locking covers. A heat/ventilation system ensures that air is 
allowed in but heat does not escape. The system is capable of receiving between 
13 and 22 kg per day. Some problems (associated with system overload) have 
been experienced with odour and fruit flies. However, technical problems are 
easily mitigated by reducing loads. 

The production cycle takes approximately 2 to 3 months, and finished product has 
been used on-site at Harbourfront. The capital cost of the system was $10,000 
(RCO, 1993). 



May 1994 PageC-16 



I 



Table C.7 
Mid-Scale Commercial and Institutional Composting Sites 



Sit« 



Bell Cuudt Office 
Towei, Monded 



Mimko 
CoirectioiuJ 
Cemre. Eiobkoke 



Ecology P»ik. 
Toronto 



Huboir front, 
Toronto 



BeU CiMda 
building, Etobicoke 



Comporting Syilcm 



Envirocycle SOOOby Vision 
Recycling: Three routing 
cyliiHten encts«d in (ibregliss 
box. powered by ■ motor 



Ecolyzer by Eco CoqxHUion: in- 
ve»e) mechinized system with 
Iwo chambers 



Routing b«iel ty Crow 
T.O.Oether Communily 
Gaideners: 8' long cedM cylindei 
with two section* divided with 
hudwHC clolh, routes with aid 
of t boat winch 



Mid-tcde vennicompotto by 
Vemiiiech Syslena: 16 worm 
bint encloced in m insulated 
meuJ conuiner 



3-bin wooden composlen by 
Buder & Baird 



FccdKodi 



Non-faiiy food prqsaralion waste 
from 14 food service outlets 



100 Ibsyday of plale scrapings 
and food preparation waste 



100 lb»7day of food waste from 
local natural food stores 



50 IbsVday of food prepvation 
waste from Harbour front 
restaurants 



too IbsVday of food waste from 
the careteria and from ill lloon 
or the building 



Costs 



SS,900 and S30/munlh for peat 
moss (optional) Capacity is 100 
pound sAl ay 



S20,000 or SS75 to lease monthly 



$4,000 for oonstruciion 



$10,000 



$12,000 



Source: RCO. 1993 



o 

00 



Comments 



Unit is located inside the building. Building 
maintenance suff collect the food waste and 
operate the composler. Compost is removed every 
2 week. 



Unit is located outdoors by the food service area. 
Liquid is strained before food waste is added to the 
system. Compost is removed after 30 days. 



Designed, built and operated by volutteer 
conununity gardeners md RCO Master 
Composlers. Compost is removed after four weeks 
to an insulated holding unit for final decomposition. 



Maintenance SUIT operate the system. Food waste 
is put through a shredder before being fed to the 
worms. Compost is harvested after ■ few months 
by Vennitech Systems. 



Employees deposit food waste into conuunen on 
each noor by the elevalors. Maintenance staff carry 
out food wasle and maintain the biiu. 



^ . 

a. 

3 

-^ 
R 3 



4 



Ministry of Enviroranent and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



• Envirocycle 5000 

The Bell Canada tower in Montreal is composting food preparation waste from 
food service outlets in this unit. Source separated organics (with grease 
discouraged) are placed into the rotating cylinders with peat moss added as a 
bulking agent. The unit is powered by a motor, and rotates 6,000 time per day, 
with constant aeration. Finished compost is produced within about two weeks. 
Approximately 240 tonncs/yr are diverted through ongoing use of the unit. 
Capital cost of the unit was $5,900, with an added annual cost of $360 for peat 
moss and $l/day electricity (RCO, 1993). 

As discussed above, a residential building in Barrie, Ontario also has been 
operating this unit successfully, diverting from 5 to 6 tonnes/year of raw food 
waste, and producing approximately 1.8 tonnes of finished compost per year 
(Collins, 1994). 

• Ecolyzer 

The Ecolyzer is an in-vessel mechanized composter that has been used since 1992 
at the Mimico Correctional Centre. The unit composts approximately 50 
kg/person/year from the 350 inmates. 

Plate scrapings and food preparation scraps are composted in the unit (with the 
preferred exception of grease and bones). Each cycle requires approximately 55 
kg to 75 kg of peat moss as a bulking agent. The unit operates on a 30 day cycle, 
where food is placed in one of two units for the first 15 days, and then composted 
while the other chamber is filled. Computer controlled aerarion and temperatiu^ 
controls are applied as the compost is electronically mixed. Each cycle produces 
approximately 225 kg of finished compost. 

The Ecolyzer unit is sold for approximately $20,000 (RCO, 1993). 

At present, the bins require high capital costs (from $5,(XK) to $25,000), although it is likely 
that cost will decrease with increased sales. Energy costs associated with mechanized 
versions further increase operating costs. 

Future Research in On-Site Composting 

Until further research is completed, reliable waste diversion estimates focusing on actual 
waste diversion or potential for diversion through on-site composting are not available. 
Research into actual participation rates and diversion of each of the above "other" on-site 
composting mechanisms may provide the level of reliable data that could be used in 
preparation of accurate diversion estimates attributable to these mechanisms. Further 
research in this area is warranted. 



References 

"Beyond Twenty Percent: Free Bin Distribution Boosts Participation Levels." in The 
Composiefs Journal. Spring 1992. 

BioCycle. 1992. Balcony Composting. Biocycle. June, 1992. 

Biocycle. 1993. Recycling from the 15th Floor. Biocycle. May, 1993. 



May 1994 Page C-18 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Brachman, S., Engelbart, M., and Duff, A. 1993. Apartments Generate More Recyclables. 
Biocycle. July, 1993. 

Compost Management Associates Ltd. 1992. "Region of Durham Backyard Composting 
Study: Draft Report. "1992 

Compost Management Associates Ltd., 1992a. "A Field Examination of the Cost- 
effectiveness, Waste Diversion Potential, and Homeowner Acceptance of Backyard 
Composting Units, Phase II: The Pickering Research, 12 Month Report." June 1992. 

Compost Management Associates Ltd., 1993. "A Field Examination of the Cost-effectiveness, 
Waste Diversion Potential, and Homeowner Acceptance of Backyard Composting 
Units, Phase II: The Pickering Research, 24 Month Report.'lunt 1993. 

Compost Management Associates. 1990. "A Field Examination of the Cost-Effectiveness, 
Waste Diversion Potential, and Homeowner Acceptance of Three Different Backyard 
Composting Units " Apr., 1990. 

Farkas, L. 1992. Multi-Unit Dwelling Corr^osting Demonstration Project. June, 1991 to 
May, 1992 

Ferguson, R.G., Commissioner of Works, Metropolitan Works Department. 1993. "Memo to 
the Metropolitan Works Committee on Home Composting Program Participants 
Survey. 'Teb., 1993. 

Gale, R.J.P. 1991. "Home Composting with the SoilSaver: An Empirical Study of Waste 
Diversion in the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth." March, 1991 

"Home Composting Programs Reach Out." in BioCycle, January 1993 

Kirkby, G., 1992. "Taking It To The People: Municipalities Distribute Compost Bins Free 
anbd Door-to-Door," in Ontario Recycling Update, Oct.-Nov., 1992 

Maclaren, V.W. 1990. "Metropolitan Toronto Home Composting Study." Prepared for 
Metropolitan Works Department. Oct., 1990 

Nash, C. 1992. "Backyard Composting: the First Step in Organic Waste Management." in 
Resource Recycling, May, 1992. 

Proctor and Redfem Ltd. 1994. City of Mississauga's Waste Minimization Demonstration 
Pilot Project: Executive Summary, Febmary. 1994. 

Proctor and Redfem. 1994. Memo to Mississauga Steering Committee. January, 1994. 

Quinte Regional Recycling, Center and South Hastings Waste Management Board. 1993. 
Blue Box 2000:The First Year. 

RIS. 1993. niinois Recyclers' Training Manual. Winter, 1993. 

RIS and H. Sutcliffe. 1993. "Recycling Feasibility Study for the Districts of Cochrane and 
Timiskaming." March 1993 

Recycling Council of Ontario. 1991/1992. Composting Comes to Co-ops, Townhouses and 
Apartment Buildings. The Composters' Journal.. Winter 91/92. 

May 1994 ' PageCW 



Ministry cf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Recycling Council of Ontario. 1993. Multi-Residential Composting in Ontario. Recycling 
Council of Ontario. May, 1993. 

Waterloo, 1992. Residential Waste Reduction Unit, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 
"Backyard Composterl Digester Participation Pilot Study: Phase II: Long-term 
Participation Results", Dec., 1992. 

Personal Communication and Comments 

Collins, M. 1994. Personal communications with M. Collins, City of Banie Municipal Works 
I>epartment. April 1994. , , 

Pantonio, Phil. Milton, 1993. Personal communication with Phil Pantonio. Milton, Ontario. 
March 1993. 

Rivers, R. 1994. Personal communications with R. Rivers. City of Mississauga. March to 
April, 1994. - 



May 1994 PageC-20 



SCHEDULE D 
RESIDENTIAL DIRECT COST 



Mudstry cf Environmeiu and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technicat Appendix 



SCHEDULE D — RESroENTIAL DIRECT COST 

Introduction 

In a Direct Cost System, waste generators pay for waste collection on the basis of the amount 
of waste generated. Most commonly, the rate smicture increases with greater quantities of 
garbage collected. Direct Cost is current practice for most IC&I wastes, and can be applied to 
the residential sector through pay-by-the-bag, selected level of service, number of cans, etc. 

The advantages of a Direct Cost System include: 

1 . It creates an economic incentive for waste reduction. 

2 . Lower quantities of garbage are sent for disposal. 

3 . Residents realize cost avoidance throu^ waste reducticHi. 

4 . Residents pay in proportion to the wastes generated (this system is a step towards 
full cost accounting). 

The disadvantages of a Direct Cost System are as follows: 

1 . It may be initially received negadvely by the public. 

2 . It may discriminate against low income or high occupancy households. 

3 . It requires complex administration and can often be expensive to implement and 
operate. 

4 . It may lead to illegal dumping and burning. 

5 . It may be difficult to control some of the problem elements (such as over-stuffed 
and heavy bags/containers). 

Types of Direct Cost System 

There arc a number of types of direct cost programs. These include: 

Metered bag 

In this system, standardized marked bags can be purchased at local retail oudets, or are given to 
the householder by the city. 

Meteredtag 

In this system, marked tags (that stick to bags or are tied to cans) are sold to the householder. 
The distribution networks fen* these tags are the saiac as for metered bags. Some form of 
volume restriction is generally used with metered tags. This limits the size of container to 
which the tag can be attached (e.g. maximum 30 gallon volume). 

Per coToaUierlbag rate 

In this system, the generator pays for the number of containers or bags set out. Some 
communities restrict the number of garbage containers which can be used by one household. 

May 1994 '■ PageD-1 



Mimstry of Enwonmeia emd Energy 
GTA 3Rs Anatysis - Service Tecfuiicat Appendix 



The hauler is responsible for monitoring the number of bins or bags set out by each household 
Any kind of container is accepted in this system. 

Graducaed per container rate 

In this system, generators pay an increasing amount for additional containers. The hauler 
monitors the number of bins set out by each householder. Any kind of container is accepted. 

Weight-based charges 

In this system, the amount of general waste sent for disposal by the generator is weighed as it 
is collected and the charge to the householder is based on this weight Usually an electronic 
system to track weights from each household is required for the implementation of weight- 
based charges. Although this type of system niight encourage higher diversion than volume* 
based systems, the level of complexity has prohibited its widespread use to date. However, 
some municipalities are conducting trials with weight-based systems and the required 
technology is expected to become more available in the future (Skumatz, 1990, 1991; 
Andicsen, 1992). 

Standardized container rental 

In this system, a bin is rented from the hauler by the householder. The rental fee for the 
ccMitaina and the waste coUecricm service is charged monthly. 

Container licenses 

In this system, households purchase an annual license for each container placed at the curb. 
The fee varies with the size of the container. 

VolunK restriction 

In this system, residents can only place a maximum number of containers {of a limited size) at 
the curbside. This system is not very popular. It can be combined with a fee, as with other 
systems described above. 

Reduced rate option 

In this system, residents who consistently generate low quantities of waste pay a significandy 
lower flat rate than the regular collection fee. 

Successful implementation of a direct cost system requires a number of elements. These 
include: 

Education 

It is inqxfftant to prepare the community by stressing and explaining the fairness of the sysum 
An on-going public education program, including the distribution of waste reduction 
information, and showing waste management's costs as a separate item on the homeownei^s 
tax bill, will provide the conomunity with the background knowledge they require to support 
the systenL 



May 1994 PageD-2 



Ministry of Environmeiii and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



3Rs Opportunities 

It is necessary tt> ensure that the community has access to public systems that encourage them 
to reduce, reuse and recycle their waste. These include curbside collection of recyclables and 
yard waste, distribution of backyaid composters, household hazardous waste depots or 
pickup, etc. 

Convenience 

The Direct Cost System must be convenient for the community to use. There must be a 
distribution network set up for bags/stickers/oHitainers to ensure that they are readily accessible 
to the public. The distributor must be fairly reimbursed for their costs. This will encourage 
their on-going participation in the program. 

Erforcement 

Some form of enforcement is necessary to keep the system operating smoothly. Methods are 
needed for solving potential illegal dumping by the homeowner. Keeping enforceable weight 
limits (50-60 IbsTbag) on containers discourages over-compaction of the containers. 

Level of Charge 

If the charge to the homeowner is too low, the program may not be a very effective economic 
incentive for waste reduction. However, if the charge is too high, it may encourage illegal 
dumping or burning of waste, tag theft, etc. It may be convenient for the municipality to 
institute a minimum fee equal to the cost of one bag/week, in order to overcome the problem of 
uneven cash flows. 

Direct cost systems have been implemented in a number of rural communities in Ontario, and in 
a number of cities in the United States. Some of these systems are described below. Table 
D.l summarizes information on a number of direct cost programs. A few case shidies are 
discussed below. 

Town of Gananoque 

The Town of Gananoque was the first municipality in Ontario to implement a full direct cost 
garbage disposal system. Both single and multi-family dwellings are included in the program. 
The system was introduced in 1991. The waste disposal fee was removed from the 1991 tax 
biUs, but the fee for waste collection remained on die taxes. A charge of $1.00/bag was 
charged to break even on the cost of waste disposal. Tags were made available to residents in 
sheets of 12 from grocery stores or the townh^. No commission was paid to the distributors. 
In response to some initial complaints about the program, the town implemented a "2 for 1" 
program, in which residents received one free garbage tag in return for every 2 bushels of 
recyclaUes delivered to the depoL 

The results of the program were a 45% reduction in waste collected (from 32 to 16 toimes per 
week) after program startup. The quantity of recyclables arriving at the depot increased from 8 
tonnes to approximately 22 tonnes per month, which amounted to 275 tonnes in 1992, or 
23.5% of the waste stream (Cunmnngs, 1993). Composter disuibution doubled to cover 50% 
penetration of the residential households. There was also a noticeable change in consumer 
habits, as residents began to switch away from over-packaging and non-recyclable packaging. 

Some of the problems encountered with the program included illegal dumping, use of 
ccmimercial bins for (illegal) disposal of residential waste, use of half-tags or counterfeit tags, 

May 1994 ' PageD-3 



^finistry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



TabltD.I 
SummuT oT D»U from Sdcd^d ENreci CofI Prognm* 



Town erf Kincftit 
Qnuno ilS» 



Tawiuttp 






(]J.7.9.10.I4.]S) 






HHiMpHi Counn. MiiifL 



Town <3t OuiMM^ut, 



Tirmimlupol Watm 



tmnrtup D( McNth. 



OHMTHfJO) 



BcrDU|h erf F^itMtf . Pviv 
(l.6.:.lOJ3,lif 



CvtiM*, r^m 16.7.IO1 



DiUgtfLGMa.JOi 



M||iBqd|«.NJr7. 10.13) 



Holtaod.lrt^k (7.10.0) 



LHBn1.MjclLr7.lO) 



Dal*«f 



AufUtt, 1992 






CnaAaot racrclini 



CtvtHidi racycLnf , 



totH 



CiMtmOt blua- 
bqijl*^ vcUnt drpou. 



ncwUBf. (m -bunt yvd 






CintniJt yard wk* 



inly. iWl 



SepamlH. IMl 



ScpVmtw, IHJ 



C^poi ncyclmi. Hamc 
ttpnptm 



CanpoHinf 



RKycknt 



CirtwA kiH) depot 



Cix4adt ncyciini 



CurtM4k ncycling 






RK^tiAf «uit ehvp 



Cvfeadi ncycbni 



Bilbrc04r*Ei 



"Jfcvtndti, r 



N(19l9) 



N(IM1> 



Dmo-^Hw «( Ptar*« 



MxBdHdn i>| ryiiaNi <t2/lM> 



Volonnry tif lyntni 4i2At^ 



Vauirit nu hl by ciemi or couaiv 
h|hir 



Hut HI tn cifytedlv (S 10 SO I cu. 



kn-ulMirniaiactawiciiugiH 



CiiMB. flu Ih wiiti m cfMbi. hvicn 
SIIA&on. iwocvw.fic I 



Mindaiix> ug ryiuni. H (XVag 



Sp«i^ ten. 1)00 tach 



SpKiil u| toe i«it« ihiji ituM tap 
<11 00 pn^) 



Cdtt^b«|i4il 23^»u 



MwdMory big ryiwn iSlOO lO jb 
t«(i.tl 23 20lbbigri 



MiiMtaivy bif «y na 1 $ 1 1 (Vbif J 



t»|fyMt(iiillVWfof20 



M iBfc iif y b«t qnd ki wymm (S.&S^»^ 



4ll60p» 



ColoBwdtaf 



Opwwl fa«c proinB 



ladiHfad 






304>i7 ;%ktg«« 
4ud|ti 









W«.g)n 0* gutufc ptf 
^KHPihdd pel *M:t ftu 

lont licin Ji to ;:0 lb 



14% 4av«r«4 tefot 

imiKipal ncvcbftg 

progniDi irapkiwMM 



Can w«i ^1 dawti 10 lb< ( u 
;Olbt) wiihU| Md 



)i% drop in wstB 



Sutemtua 4vniH in 

*ntta ti irwfftT ruKon 

mncf Aractcari 



ff ptawd BAM Ajtct coai 



DiJK I torn trm n 



(L«rb«||r lui dKnuHt 



G«««p dKTHHd 21%. 



Rancfang c«ltocbH Bd 

ktirf ccfopofuni fKibry ikcp- 
trff 



Aboui W4i ia[ popuimof) u on 
TyniJii 



EjLpBnntw "lA w«i|lH-bHt4 
ctargc Kvai frcmBiig 



[•cycling 



Etwycbng CnAfe ( 1 4-42% ti 

COtiKIMA f hvfH ID MRU 



Rmc lag for two taaWi h 
ncycli«| MMKMl Hone 
ccnpomr ^**'"t** up 



InmiH in cfinpenng ml 
ncycluig prDgtMir ntK* 

<kimc\ COR ifi[iJBiiTlii] 



County 



ncrcliBg. 



RacycliiiiuKH 



wavkly ptncifHtKm ma. 



[Utf^ 



jroHuL 



May 7994 



PageD-4 



Muiistry cf EHviroiunent out Energy 
GTA 3fts Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Tibl«D.I 
StuanafT of Dmu rron Selected DInct Cart Prognmi 



LiTn>tit.Pitfiii(7.ll>.I3) 



OlyiB|ifc Waffewftni 

r. 10.111 



I6.7.10.S31 



WoDM«k.ll. O.IO.I}) 



tlMt*« 



lO-llfam 



C(Mt«# ncyctani 



CirtaA ncyclini 



C(Mt>sdc ncyclini 



AfnnjDcm Hut bi| 
protnm 



pvwvttnt 
Cmifi^ini) 



wMlf^vlik ff nvfn B 



MiadtiixT tat Pop« tti-SOra hitil 






M«i4M<ir¥ bH ■¥!■!■ (St 2(Vbacj 



OpBoflkl Blw-b«| wywtn tot afwttatam 
(S I 0(M»|1 MmmImIA r>|F niH (•■ In 



MamkuMT ta( •fnia lll.tl/b^) 



OWWlPtl«ll n 

Rttohijvl 



kapMti Wa>Mlibli> 



No inciiuii in |«4«f«. 
n^il* ta««lr 



SotnrnHB in |ii1U(€. 



prddwttil 



Dkihh hi gwtef* 



rrrMjM "iihurtu^ 
mpoflAd tnm aH d wl 



in 1«1 



RfcyrJAHfi *ti|hl m^ 



Slaadf UICRIH Ul ■c>clifl| 



Sl.Clai4.Iitai.tl!> 



Jcly. IWI 



C vtMdt cflUaclwii 









Soni )ll*ial fulfill 



Vilbtt << Uon. NY 
O.IO.n.li) 



C vt«4» c<41«cueii 



lUOOwdll 73 



Ricyclabto mills ikiub 
Qlllil dim|in| up 2ft. 



O) CX2U HU h,._a| IjttAnvtc ll«P>« Cq«K -A C3ID Wkk U_ ^n S>an to S..I.I W>_^ pi^..^ tv 1. C«>U *q.>al Bwn M •■ SC M^^ 



■a, 'OawiaaM Mma mM br *W. AhHWM*. tt J. I f«3 

(3)F-tb^aHa<«<IV-Ua.hr>rK9aBl'M>.l^alKTtb«-,R»>WiiBaKW_at) <]^f I 
M) llip*t OmtrntUm. Lmtt. 1«|l ■ « i v.i^l, Tk^i CcUMm H^-. Iiccpck. Ami ml 

"'" "■ .-T— r. -II-:-!^:— ,.-.-■..—— -^ -^^■,- Ill 

<*)(te>H >KTC^ Up"* W«>. " n * II *■« m' »™r— >■•«»■ ■■»«•. nouwt i«ttlni-. Oiua Ibircliiv Uff*. lai Fit lt91 r. 3 

<11 ha4- Nit •dCkna.Aina. -bdi'i bada b«iT-. Sank UiiW_a Haul, m: 

|l«|Pl-a.aliUtoKLl<.-r«n(<C>h>qiClM«^ U_.Par Fa>iWnaulr-.pa|i.^te •■ T<>nofCa>_|. l_m IMl 
(II) laaava iBvaaa ),>»•. UL Ta. di i Pit Itm: A P P<--.| n .i H . b aac^lH A4»n - IH) 

(ia»^»*.»a»J<»»»«.Dm'V— *maalf^fa» ■.ta»»ifc.''| I IW 

(H) » M« l .lJ«J»n«—^fc C ^ll.'V«iA»ilJa«»lmW—:li I I l» SaM W». (KhJ,-. ugf A. mo 
.,->- ■ ■ . - - ..^ -^^ , . . ..^ . I . ^. . J . ■■ ^ .-^ 

""*— *"^''' 1^-a-M.t-w— r ■ . —i n . -n- a«^ -,»—-_ v . . . .. — ,_.-^ . ^ ^ — 

(H)a»A»»*.d M B m rm ■ » l l Fa» U» fa.-. l»,.fc a.— IWl 

(til IWiraia. Uh, Tti njjipi ■at-Tit nana'. ' - -" p un. 

(lOAaf l»l l ■■«»laajF«»aHa»;ri^ r I l .Toa..J r ji.l .aaa>»l*>l 

(H)A>«CII»>T>T»IWl ■iim lilBl.W»»^«.mi 



L UnA «id Paka. IH2 



May 1994 



PageD-5 



Mimsay ofEHviromient and Eturgy 
GTA 3Rs AneUysis - Service Technical Append 



public misconception that the town was charging twice far garbage disposal (i.e. on taxes and 
with tags), and some multi-residential tenants were storing garbage. The town has amended a 
bylaw so that it can now clean up waste and cha^e for their services. 

Seattle, Washington 

Seattle instituted a variable can rate structure in 1981, whereby residents paid more for 
additional cans of waste to be picked up. In 1989, the City adopted an Integrated Solid Waste 
Management Plan, with the goal of achieving a 60% rcductionAecycling level by 1998 (Pealy 
and Ostrom, 1992). They determined that restructuring rales to encourage recycling would 
not, by itself, increase recycling. The City evaluated a number of different rate options, and 
recommended a substantial increase to the additional can rate (the charge for each addiucxial can 
after one can of service), as well as offering a "mini-can" service (a 19 gallcxi can instead of the 
regular 32 gallon can), and introducing a curbside collection program for yard waste. The cost 
for the one-can rate stayed essentially the same (from $13.S5/month to $13.75Anonth), but the 
"additional can rate" went from $5.00Anonth to $9.00An(»ith. The mini-can service was priced 
at $10.70/month. Note that the cost of curbside recycling is covered by the basic one-can rate, 
whether mini or regular can. This provides a stable source of revenue for the curbside 
recycling program, and encourages recycling by making garbage disposal look more expensive 
relative to recycling, which appears to be "^ee". The curbside collection of yard waste, which 
began in 1989, is available for an additional charge of $2.00/month. 

To address the |HX)blem of occasional extra waste, customers can purchase stickers to attach to 
each bundle of waste. The stickers are sold for $5.00 each at various locations throughout the 
city. Residents can place extra waste at the curb in a bag, box or bundle on their regular 
garbage collection day. Extra waste is not collected without a sticker. 

Eighty-nine percent of the City's single family garbage customers subscribe to one-can or mini- 
can service (64% are one-can customers, and 25% are mini-can customers). Only 1% 
subscribe to two or more cans of service. This contrasts sharply to 1988 percentages, when 
60% of single fanuly customers subscribed to one can, and 39% subscritN»j to two or noore 
cans. Seattie's residents have reduced the average number of cans put out for pick-up from 3.5 
to just over 1 can. Between 1986 and 1989, residential waste tonnage fell by 25%. Ptior to 
the introduction of the city-sponsored recycling program, the recycling percentage in terms of 
actual tonnes of waste diverted was over 24% There is a 75% sign up rate for the curbside 
recycling program. The program collects about 3,500 tons per month, or an average of 63 
lbs./hhld. Over 60% of Seattle's customers subscribe to the City's yard waste collection and 
composting program. In 1989, the curbside yard waste program diverted over 27,000 tons of 
residential waste to a composting facility. 

There was some concern about the effect of the rate changes to low income customers and 
charitable organizations. These low income customers receive 77% off the basic one-can 
service. The cost of additional cans is reduced by 22%. The City offers subsidized dumping 
rates at the transfer stations for certain charitable organizations (about a 35% discount). 

Perkasie, Penn. 

Perkasie is a small town in suburban Pennsylvania with a population of 7,9(X). A direct cost 
program was started in 1988 at the same time as a curbside recycling program. This is a 
mandatory bag program with prices ranging from $1.25 for a 201b bag to $2.C0 for a 401b. In 
1988, the Borough diverted 900 tons from the 2800 ton total requiring disposal in 1987, a net 
32% diversion (Stone, 1990). An estimated 410 tons of this diversion came from increase 
recycling activity. The remaining 490 tons is assumed to have resulted from a decrease in the 
amount of waste generated. 

May 1994 . PageD-6 



Ministry efEnvironmeiu and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Ilion, NY 

Ilion is a small town in rural New York State roughly half way between New York City and 
Buffalo. The population of the town is 9,190. A direct cost program was initiated in the town 
in 1988. After the implementation of the program, significant changes to waste generation and 
disposal patterns were noticed. 

The overall amount of waste collected and sent to landfill went from 4,380 tons in 1987/1988 
to 2,120 tons in 1988/1989. This represents a reduction of 52% in the quantity of waste 
disposed. The amount of material collected in the recycling program went from 170 tons to 410 
tons in the same time period. However, the increased recychng activity in no way accounts for 
the reduction in disposed tonnages. The total waste collected (recycling + disposal) fell 44% 
(4,550 tons to 2,530 tons). 

Diversion Potential 

All direct cost systems appear to achieve reductions in the quantities of waste sent to disposal. 
Table D.2 illustrates the diversion achieved by the four programs considered in detail. 



Table D.2 
Reported Residential Waste Flows (tonnes/year) 



tpcatioii 



<t<»»tes or tcng) 



Recycled 
Ubmtea or twis) 



: LftiidfUled : 
jtoirne^ of towa) 



Gananoque^ 6nt. 

Before Direct Cost 
After Direct Cost 
% change 



Seattle Wash. 

Befose Increase 
After Increase 
% change 



:hange 



Perkasie, Penn. 

Before Direct Cost 
After Direct Cost 
%chani 



^ 



1760 
1096 
-38% 



225,600 

232,400 

+3% 



2,800 
2.310 
-18% 



96 

264 

+175% 



40,600 

44,400 

+9% 




410 

NA 



1664 

832 

-50% 



185,000 
188,000 

+2% 



2,800 

1,900 

32% 



Ilion, "NV ~ 

Before Direct Cost 
After Direct Cost 
% change 



4,550 
2,530 
-44% 



170 

410 

+141% 



(Data from Morris and Glenn, 1990; Cummings, 1993) 



4,380 
2,120 
-52% 



It should be noted that although Seattle's waste disposal did not fall with the increase in price 
for disposal, this program had been established for a long time and most residents have 
probably altered waste generation habits. Also, more recent reports (Pealy and Ostrom, 1992) 
indicate that waste requiring disposal has fallen an additional 24% since the program change 
(however, no specific num^rs were reported). Although the amount of waste disposed after 
implementation of direct cost systems seems to be quite dramatic, it is difficult to determine 
exactly what the effects of implementing this type of program might be. In the case of recycling 
participation, residential participation rates can be expected to increase in a fashion similar to 
May 1994 PageD-7 



Mimstry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Tecfmical Append 



the case studies. However, the level of diversicm achieved by source reduction is mcne difficult 
to quantify. The programs studied did not identify the manner in which the waste was diverted, 
for instance, through increased backyard composting, burning or illegal dumping. With the 
present literature, it is impossible to accurately quantify the source reduction expected 
implementation of a Direct Cost System. As a result, it was assumed that the level of source 
rcducdon in a Direct Cost System would be the same as in the Existing/Conmiitted system, 
with increases in the level of pardcipation in the recycling program, including Blue Box, leaf 
and yard waste separation and backyard conqx>sting. 

Costs 

A cost-related problem identified in Northfield, Minnesota is that residents arc compacting their 
waste in order to put out as few bags as possible at the curb. This compaction does not change 
the weight of the waste, hence the payment collected for the volume of waste is insufficient to 
pay for tipping fee charged for the weight of the waste. 

A number of additional administrative costs and problems associated with implementing a 
direct cost program were identified in Seattie. These include: 

• Additional stafTrequired fOT administering a variable-can rate structure 

• Additional public information staff required to handle increased customer inquiries. 

• A trained rates staff is required to design and inqjlcment the program. SeatUe added 
two full-time staff, with strong economics backgrounds, to manage its rate 
development process (Pealy and Ostrom , 1992). 

• Additional staff may be required to handle the promotions and education necessary 
to make a variable-can structure woric. 

• Revenues and costs can become less predictable. For example, Seattle did not 
anticipate the dramatic switch from two cans to one can of service when the 
Utility's additional can rate increased from $5.00/month to $9.00/month. This 
switch played a major role in the Utility's 1990 revenue shortfall (Pealy and 
Ostrom, 1992). 

Morris and Byrd (1990) identified a number of additional costs: 

additional labour, materials, and equipment requiied to collect additional recyclable 

matnials; 

additional labour, materials, and equipment required to collect litter or other diverted 

waste; 

additional costs associated with monitoring quantities of waste collected from each 

custtxner, 

additional costs of enforcing the unit pricing program and related restrictions; 

additional program administration costs. 

In a study by Proctor and Redfem (1993), most of the communities surveyed reported tiiat the 
direct cost system for waste collection and disposal had not contributed to any significant 
increases in administrative or equipment costs. The coded bag and coded tag systems, in 
particular, appeared to be the lowest cost programs to implement because in most cases, the 
distribution of tags or bags was decentralized (e.g. sold through local stores). The volume- 
based systems did not create any substantia increases in costs for waste management 
equipment, and most communities charged residents for the full cost of the waste management 
service. Several programs reported that any increase in administrative costs was primarily 
based on the need for extensive education and promotion programs at the start of the direct cost 
program. Even communities with central billing systems indicated that their costs did not 
increase sigruficantly once the billing system was set up on the computer. One community 

May 1994 ~~" [ PageD-8 



Uinstry of Enviroiuneiu and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



reponed that their vaiiable container system is tTtpcaawc because of the rigid containers used in 
this program compared to bags or tags. The increased expense of this program has been 
passed on to the householder tlvough higher direa cost payments compared to other programs. 

A study carried out of direct cost programs in Perkasie, Pennsylvania and Ilicm, New York 
found that the programs apparently achieved savings that more than offset the additional 
monetary costs associated widi changes in waste coliecticMi and recycling programs (Morris and 
Byrd, 1990). Perkasie's annual costs were approximately 10 percent lower after introducing 
unit pricing and curbsitte recycling than they were under die piivious fixed fee systenL Dion's 
costs were approximately IS percent lower. Programs in both communities consisted of unit 
pricing and increased recycling. In addition, Perkasie reduced waste collection frequency to 
once per week from twice per week. 

References 

Andresen, Katya, Communities Weight Merits of Variable Rates, Wwld Wastes, November 
1992. 

CH2M HILL Engineering Ltd/Synergic Resource Corporation, A CRD-Wide User-Pay 

System for Solid Waste, prepared for: the Capital Regional EHstria and the BC Ministry 
of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1992. 

Cummings, Christopher, Town reduces waste 50% with bag-lag system. Civic Public Works, 
March/April 1993. 

Flaherty, Lora, Gananoque cuts waste by 40%, Alternatives, 19:3, 1993. 

For R Information (staff). User-Pay System Cuts Waste, Boosts Recycling, For R 
Information, Winter 9 1 -92, p.2. 

Harder, Greg and Knox, Linda, Implementing Variable Trash Collection Rates, Biocycle, 
April 1992. 

Morris, Glenn and Byrd, D., Unit Pricing for Solid Waste Collection, Popular Government. 
56, Fall 1990. 

Ontario Recycling Update (staff), Gananoque 'bag tag' program reduces garbage, increases 
recycling, Ontario Recycling Update, Jan-Feb 1992, p. 5. 

Pealy, Nick and Ostrom, Aaron, Seattle's Road to Recovery, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, . 
1992. 

Proctor and Redfcm, Ltd., Town ofCobourg's Curbside 'User-Pay' Feasibility Study, 
prepared for the Town of Cobourg, January 1993. 

Resource Integration Systems, Ltd., Generator Pay Systems: A Discussion Paper, prepared 
for the Recycling Advisory Committee, 1990. 

Schmidt, Susan and Krivit, Dan, Variable fee systems for Minnesota, Biocycle, September 
1992. 

Skumatz, Lisa, Garbage by ike pound: the potential of weight-based rates. Resource 
Recycling, July 1991. 

May 1994 PageD-9 



Mitiiaty (^Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Skumatz, Lisa, Variable Rates in Solid Waste: Approaches for Providing Incentives for 

Recycling and Waste Reduction and a More Efficient Solid Waste System, presented at 
Hrst US Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management, June 1990. 

Skumatz, Lisa and Beckenridge, Cambell, Variable Rates in Solid Waste: Handbook for Solid 
Waste Officials, USEPA, 1990. 

Stone, Sarah, Charging Households for Waste Collection and Disposal: The Effects of Weight 
or Volume-Based Pricing on Solid Waste Management, US EPA, 1990. 

Stone, Sarah and Hairison, Ellen, Residents Favor User Fees, Biocycle, August 1991. 

Thivierge, Marc, The Gananoque Bag-Tag Program, Town of Gananoque, 1992. 



May 1994- FageD-10 



SCHEDULE E 
EXPANDED BLUE BOX 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3fis Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE E — EXPANDED BLUE BOX 
Introduction 

An Expanded Blue Box system is essentially Blue Box recycling with an expanded variety of 
dry recyclable materials. It attempts to achieve maximum diversion of recyclable materials 
using existing or modified facilities, and systems cunently available to the municipality. This 
approach is combined with extensive promotion of backyard composting to allow residents the 
opportunity to divert organics from disposal. 

Types of Expanded Blue Box Systems 

■ The materials that may be collected in an Expanded Blue Box system include any or all of the 
following: 

Plastics 

• PET 

. rigid plastic botUes & tubes (HDPE, PVC, PP. LDPE) 

• film plastic (LDPE) 

• foam plastic and rigid trays (PS) 

Pjqjer Fibre , 

• newspaper (ONP) 

• corrugated cardboard (OCC) 

• boxboard 

• polycoat (e.g. milk cartons) 

• phonebooks 

• magazines and catalogues (OMCl) 

• mixed household paper 



Metal 



Glass 



Textiles 



steel cans 
aluminum cans 
aluminum trays and foil 

clear and coloured glass 



Standard curbside programs include newspaper, glass, cans and PET beverage containers. 
Senile programs also include rigid plastic containers, boxboard and OCC. 

Elements of Successful Expanded Blue Box System 

There are three aspects of a conventional Blue Box program that can be enhanced by creating 
an Expanded Blue Box system: 

• expand the range of materials that can be accepted in the Blue Box. 

• improve the ciqjture rate of currently collected materials 

• increase the participation rate 

A key component of an Expanded Blue Box program is the emphasis on preparation of 
rccyclables (including rinsing and sorting) by the public, and an increase in sorting by the 

collection crew. This is achieved thn)ugh extensive promotion and education. 

May 1994 PageE-1 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



An aggressive Expanded Blue Box program can lower the average cost of collection and 
processing, since costs tend to go down as more boxes are distributed, more materials are 
added, and capture rates increase. 

Case Studies of Expanded Blue Box Systems 

Centre and South Hastings - Quinte Regional Recycling 

(Quintc Regional Recycling, 1993) . / 

Blue Box 2000 was launched in November 1991. The target of the program is to exceed a 
50% diversion in the residential waste stream. The components of the program include an 
Expanded Blue Box recycling program (residential and IC&I), backyard composting, 
household hazardous waste program, and waste reduction initiatives. Although the Region had 
previously been involved in a Blue Box Plus! program (which stancd in fall 1990), they treated 
Blue Box 2000 as an entirely new program, with extensive promotional and educational 
activities. The focus of the launch was on what types of materials were to be collected, and 
how the householder was to set out these material at the curb. ^ . 

Materials are pre-sorted into 6 groupings by the householder. Residents use a regular Blue 
Box, and a number of bags for materials at the curb. The driver then sorts these materials into 
7 different compartments on the truck, The allowable materials are all of those listed on the 
previous page. 

Participation studies of 1,200 households were conducted in Belleville and Trenton in the 
spring and fall of 1992, and spring 1993. The results include: 

• average weekly set-out was in the 58% to 62% range; 

• Blue Boxes that did not contain the full range of allowable materials were reduced 
&«m 4% in 1991 to 1% in 1993; 

• Blue Boxes that contained unacceptable materials (e.g. window glass, aerosol cans) 
were between 4% and 9% of the total (as compared to 22% to 28% in 1991); 

• the average capture rate for conventional materials was 79%. The overall capture 
rate of Blue Box 2000 materials, including non-paiticipants, was 62% in 1992. 
The lowest capture rates were for mixed paper, film plastic, boxboard and textiles.. 

The study resuhs showed that participation improved over time, and shows no sign of leveling 
off to date. 

The average recovery rate for the Blue Box 2000 program for all the participating municipalities 
in Centre and South Hastings was 175 kg/hhld/year. It was 210 kg^hld/year for urban 
residents based on the 1992 spring waste composition study. The average value for all 
participating villages, towns, cities, and rural households with curbside pickup (i.e. no depots) 
was 204 kgAihld/year. This compares to an average value of 138 kg/hhld/year for all Blue Box 
programs in Ontario, and 130 k^hld/year for a small central Ontario city with a mature Blue 
Box program. 

Burnaby, British Columbia 

(Bischoff, 1992 and 1993) 

An Expanded Blue Box program was implemented in Burnaby, B.C. January 1991. A multi- 
family recycling pilot program ran from April 1991 to May 1992, which included 368 units. 
This program was increased to approximately 10,000 units in 160 multi- family buildings in 
September, 1992. The curbside program currenUy serves 36,000 single-family households, 

- May 1994 ' Page E-2 



and the 10,000 multi-family units. 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis ~ Service Technical Appendix 



The materials collected include ONP, boxboard, OMG, flyers, glossy paper, packaging 
material, glass, metal containers, PET and HDPE. Residents in single family dwellings sort 
their waste into three groupings: Blue Box for mixed containers, reusable vinyl yellow bag for 
boxboard, OMG, mixed paper, etc., and reusable vinyl blue bag for newspaper. 

Residents in multi-family units receive reusable blue bags to store their recyclables. 
Participants carry the recyclables to a central area, where they are soned into 3 colour-coded 
roll-out containers (same groupings as for single-family). The same three-way sort is used on 
the truck. The collection efficiency is high because the curb and truck sorts are the same. 

The results of a 4-week survey showed a monthly participation rate of approximately 90%, and 
a weekly set out rate of 50-55% in 1991. Approximately 144 kg/hhld/year were recovered by 
the curbside (single-family) program. The pilot multi-family program recovered an average of 
2 kg/unit/week (104 kg/unit^ear). In 1992 reported recovery was 161 kg/hhld/yr for curbside 
(single-family) collection. Multi-family service was operating only for part of the year. This 
compares to the provincial average of 138 kg/hhld/year for all Blue Box programs in Ontario, 
and an average of 130 kg/hhld/year for a small central Ontario city with a mature Blue Box 
program. 

Edmonton, Alberta 

(Egan, 1992 and 1993) 

An Expanded Blue Box program was implemented in Edmonton in 1989. The curbside 
program currendy serves 140,000 single family dwellings, while 11 depots serve 133,0{X) 
multi-family units. There are six more depots scheduled to open in 1993. 

The materials collected in the curbside program include glass, metals (cans, certain types of 
scrap metal such as broken tools, small car parts, short lengtiis of pipe and tubing, eaves 
trough, etc.), all rigid household plastic (including PET, HDPE, etc.). plastic bags, mixed 
plastic excluding foam plastic (PS), ONP and inserts, magazines and catalogues, OCC, 
boxboard, polycoat, brown paper bags. ONP is bagged and OMG are bundled, and both are 
placed on top of the blue box. Plastics are bagged and clijJped to the comer of the box with 
special clips. OCC and paper bags are bundled and placed beside the Blue Box. All other 
materials are placed in the Blue Box. Multi-family residents are supplied witii mini-blue boxes. 
They transport the materials to nearby depots, where they are separated into containers. 
Currently, glass is not accepted at depots since there is no local market. Scrap metals are not 
accepted, while high grades of paper are. 

The results of a 4 week survey indicated a 92% participation rate. In 1992, 29,415 tonnes of 
recyclables were collected in the curbside program, a recovery rate of 210 kg/hh/yr. 1,526 
tonnes of material were collected through die depots. In 1991, a total of 28,812 tonnes of 
recyclables were collected. The total amount disposed at landfill in 1991 was 130,330 tonnes, 
representing a residential diversion rate of 18%. 

Bluewater, Ontario 

(Veilleux, 1993, RCO, 1993) 

Bluewater Recycling Association is Ontario's oldest and largest RecycUng co-operative, having 
opened in 1989. It currendy serves approximately 43,(XX) households in 45 municipalities. 38 
of the municipalities, 38,000 households, are served by curbside collection of Expanded Blue 
Box materials, and 7 municipalities, 5,000 households, are served by dejwt programs. Direct 
cost programs have been instituted in four of the municipalities, two curbside and two depot 

May 1994 ' PageEJ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



programs. 

Materials collected include ONP, OCC, boxboard (excluding depots), fine paper, steel and 
aluminum containers, aluminum foil, clear and coloured glass, rigid plastics (HDPE, LDPE) 
and some other plastics. Materials are sorted into four streams at the curb. Recovery rates 
from the curbside programs in 1992 averaged 209 kg/hh/yr. In the depot program the average 
recovery rate was 206 kg/hh/yr (RIS, 1993). 

The communities operating direct cost programs have seen a significant increase in recyclables 
collected, from 50% in one community (begun in 1992) to 98% in another community (started 
in July, 1993). 

Mississauga, Ontario 

(Rivers 1993 and 1994, Long, 1993) 

Mississauga operates an expanded Blue Box collection program. Materials collected include 
ONP, OCC. OTD, OMG, steel and aluminum containers, PET, HDPE, LDPE, polystyrene,, 
other rigid plastics, drink boxes and textiles. 

Data reported for 1992 shows approximately 25,154 tonnes of materials recovered from both 
single-family and multi-family residences, representing a recovery rate of approximately 184 
kg/hh/yr. In 1993 an estimated 22,833 tonnes were recovered, representing an estimated 
recovery of 44% of targetted materials. 

Diversion Potential 

The Blue Box Plus! program in Centre and. South Hastings, which included conventional Blue 
Box materials plus boxboard, rigid plastic and corrugated cardboard, achieved approximately 
18% diversion of the residential waste stream in 1991. The Blue Box 2000 program diverted 
21% of residential waste in 1992. This figure includes recyclables only (Quinte Regional 
RecycUng, 1993). 

In Bumaby, approximately 5,200 tonnes of recyclables were recovered in 1991, which is 
equivalent to a diversion rate of 15% of the residential waste stream (Bischoff, City of 
Bumaby, 1993). 

Approximately 28,812 tonnes of recyclables were collected in Edmonton in 1991. The total 
amount disposed at landfill in 1991 was 130,330 tonnes, therefore, the residential diversion 
rate was 18% (Egan, City of Edmonton, 1992, 1993). 

In Bluewater the Expanded Blue Box programs have resulted in an average reduction of 30% 
in waste going to landfill as compared to 1987. 

A summary of selected programs collecting an expanded range of materials is presented in 
Table E.1 



May 1994 PageE-i 



T.ble E.1 



SumiiiBry of Selected Residential Recycling Programmes 
With Emanded Ranae of Matertali 



PWi Moodf. K I Co-oill. Ck Bai 

90-|ilcaiaka 



frimpiaa, Gtai. 

Com * Soulli 

edniialos. Alu 
Bteoouo, Alu 
lklifa.NS 

HoltmmB BiMM. 1. 
NH 



tti^a^A^ribA ' 



Curbaiilr 

adcjMi 4 



Bio 



Bjnaiooj.bv 



--^1 






■■a 

itopa 

!9 

BA.WIka«ri: 



!«4Hi. 



1 
I 



-kJjr 



J7,l«ill 

Sai7-dep« 



W 



I Eipanded R«w^ < 



>h(iiNl>flll.lill 



ISlI 



i 



MH*ij«ki|i. Ou 



I 






rUjr 



11,000 


DMAVItl^ 


foTinf^.on 


15- W*. 


4J0O.4HIIII 

1^000- icai 


13-91 «l 


140,019 


?l*j 


i]}.ooa 


HWlil] 



I /I ^1 rf; rfl ^1 <: rfj 

./ ^ ^ ^ / ^ / /I 



.€.<', t^i 



I 



IH 






'. '. '. <. ': 'i '. 'i ' ' 

y 
/ / ^ V / y, 






103.WO' 



t» 



* V 



! 14 ;* 



12,000 


97- 


7.000 


■Ml« 


UTOOO 
•nilrrmiilr 
^■■ki-rmlf 


HI avHl_ 



VMKmivw. BC 



Biatlliil 



11 •Ujl 



I ^>r! 



irtir 



70.0001 

4,000 1 



TIJOO: 



8ojoo; 



90-9:«. 



'. ■'. ■'■. ', '. ', '. '1 <! ^1 < 



/ f 4 J J V / ^! I i^ 

', '. ', ', . '. '. 'i ' ^. 



I 



*•*«*' 



<•) 






I i 



209-cuife{ 



* < 



^1 



^{4 









A ^1 ^1 



Y ^^ ^ ■/ J. ^ ^ ^: /I 



I Viilhw. P, Bliwas ■•cyel^ Aiaocimoa IM). psHUd ceaoiuauia 

BiiTdlBfOlimaJ of OlMfte ^bi«il"ltalTCI^Tw|iO Piftlff«nBll»iluaj<iii- July SqH, 19*3 
Lm<»>«. M, ri*lic Wato By. fc ■ I III I , P.Q. I»W. Pmcpjl c iMiiaii i c i i a 
BadMll. R., AM- D*. BH*Mn«, Bin*T. BC l«n * IW3. PoHBd <aiuiiBk:>i»o 
QtuwB<fio^lt«yd^'BkBBci]OOaTk*PniYiH,-Afnl IW) 
^H.UBitelHanMicWak>Dv(., 1991 4 )9n. Pniiial coauwkuon 
Bild. ). 1W3. niiglwhi mJ Wmfa Diri-, Oit °* H«ltf». ftnmtt c 

I VbcMilla. T, l»»). Hmpiilita IWifa MU". Pmod cunk 
Ma»M.,IUcrcIta(C*,lliAuHBuMkl-lWl. PnoHlc 

10 Mam, O, lUcytl^ Ck, U*daad«y, KH. 1993. rtnul c 

II LMt, A. »J ». RiT««. MiMliM m OM. 1993. pMCMl i -nn— Mi fM iiii 

11 B^by.UanrofS— l«,WA. HW.PWM I ni— MM WiinB 
13 H^K.Olf M.Bl|kiM^»l>vl<*,PlnM<wtr.B.CIW3 PfiHuJc 
U Aafcrw, r,IU<TtliMlllW^".aiT<itV—MW».BCl»93.Pmaw)n« 



161 13ft. 1991 

191 11% 

110 11*. 1991 
11 



m 

173 



&iiinu« iv«i|i 30% nductioa ■ mniviali itfu u> taadAU compand id ]9t7 

4 nmnic^iAljMi bmtt du«a ccal lyatoa (50% - 91% i«it4B«d t««yirT} 

Eilaiuud IO%ord>f<iliiiaai>linlCal. _ 'A tt 1 

f^opvam* ttmitd Ocobci, 1993 

Swilcb«d from bag lo bdi |ira|riiBntc j 

Racovay nladoanol ndudrin/- bmnadl-wll mvolvnnoit 1773 u | 

(9,073 nif «uu) PinkfiMiaa mauwad 1991 



Racoviry ntf ■ fa •* n«a cmtaick Bba Boi 1000 ccUacUM [n lit CASH 
BHHUcfaliuaa, a doaa ddi iiicl CAD «*d hifey ilana 



Two csUacMn ODOfractt ■ Donli A Mucb Divanjon iDchalnailpro|naiiDB j 
Eapaadad BUDbarof dcpon homb u II B] Oct , 1991. CtaHidriugaddBg [ 
|lw to 4ipol ppn 
KacovoT latt dM4 ftol awMe Hilitu Couory wtudi u iwad ooly «va pcf 



Data Dot BvailaJila 

Stpmmt mUacm of fvuaabW |oodi by Salv Anoy 
SwHctaiBI fron Up u Ma - ^atortd 



331 

154! 

ml 



l*kt ainmcl) MWF |ciivii«d a OP^ . iMad for Ha mnpailnirna 
AiaociMcd vA dract cm a^rMcB Par urtploa fa na l ni fraa aal-otf raf 
iwna|ad Dvia jmt 

AuockaKd «|A dcacE onai ■yalaa. Addad acpania hn In |laa* a) 1993 
P«itcy«BB ■iMinf taa aal-wl laty a ia jt ajjag J« 
B^fiairtapvaraMadill 1993. ««em«T tan daa ■« ■duda Mi ni t i ll 
daKIonaa. X'WVaaa Alu doaa HI Bdvda «ifclt S«-«il nla aiiaai I 

■ 31% 



7U 

7, 

« 
IC 






SI 

it 



I 



I 



Ministry of EnvironmerU and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



References 

Argue, R., "Blue Box 2000: An Experiment in Maximum Recycling." Resource Recycling. 
Jan., 1993 

OMMRI, Ontario, 1993, Depot Study, 1993. 

Quinte Regional Recycling, - Centre and South Hastings Waste Management, Blue Box 2000: 
The First Year, April, 1993. 

Recycling (^ibuncil of Ontario (RCO). "Bluewater Recycling Targets Fifty Percent Reduction." 
Ontario Recycling Update. March, 1992 

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO). "Southwestern Ontario's Bluewater Recycling 
Association is Proof that There's Power In Numbers." Ontario Recycling Update. July- 
Sept., 1992 ' . 

Personal communications and comments * 

Bagby, J. 1993, Personal communication with J. Bagby, City of Seattle, WA. 1993. 

Bauld, J. 1993, Personal communication with J. Bauld, City of Halifax, NS. 1993. 

Bischoff, R. 1992 and 1993, Personal communication with R. Bischoff, Asst. Dir. 
Engineering, City of Bumaby. 1992 and 1993. 

Egan, L. 1992 and 1993, Personal communication with L. Egan, Edmonton Public Works 
DepL, Nov., 1992 and Oct., 1993. 

Friesen, M. 1992, Personal communication wjth M. Friesen, Recycling Cdtr., Hoffmann 
Estates, DL. 1992. 

Laroche, M. 1993, Personal communication with M. Laroche, Brossard Public Works Dept. 
1993. 

Long, A. and R. Rivers, 1993, Personal comriiunication with A. Long and R. Rivers, 
Mississauga. 1993. 

MacMillan, T. 1993, Personal communication with T. MacMillan, Manager, Metro Halifax 
MRF. 1993. 

Moretti, G. 1993, Personal communication with G. Moretti, Recycling Cdtr., Londonderry, 
NH. 1993. 

Rivers, R. 1994, Personal communication with R, Rivers, Mississauga, March-April 1994. 

Veilleux, F. 1993, Personal communication with F. Veilleux, Bluewater Recycling 
Association. 1993. 



May 1994 PageE-6 



SCHEDULE F 

RESIDENTIAL WET/DRY SYSTEM 
INFORMATION 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE F— RESIDENTIAL WET/DRY SYSTEM INFORMATION 

Introduction 

The term "wet/dry" is commonly used to refer to a type of solid waste collection program in 
which the householder is required to separate waste into 2 distinct streams - wet or the organic 
fraction, and dry, which consists of fibres, plastic, metals, etc. Each stream is stored 
separately in a container (typically a plastic bag or bin) which, in the case of single family 
residents, is then taken out to the curb for coUecticm. 

There are two main variations of a "wet/dry" system: two stream (wet and dry) and three 
stream (clean wet, clean dry and residue waste). A four stream system is in use in Europe, but 
has not been used in North America to date (RIS, 1992, Bennet, R Cave & Assoc., 1988). 

In a two stream system no separate residue or "garbage" option is provided to the householder, 
as residue is pulled from the recyclable or compostable material at a materials recovery facility 
(MRF) or compost facility. 

To date, most trials have required separate collections with two trucks. 

Four demonstration scale programs have been completed in Ontario to research the practicality 
of these collection systems, "fiie host communities for these demonstration programs were; 

^ theOtyofGuelph 

— the City of Mississauga 

— theRegionof Haltbn and 

— Metro Toronto 

The City of Sl Thomas piloted wet/dry collection from 600 households in 1993, and is rolling 
the program out city wide in May 1994. In addition to these five Ontario programs, a number 
of other Canadian communities have considered or implemented wet/dry systems. These 
include: 

• Gold River, B.C.; 

• District of Lunenburg, N.S.; 

• Town of Markham, c5ntario; 

• Sl Thomas, Ontario; 

• Prince County, P.E.I.; 

• Victoria, B.C. 

Some of these programs as well as a selection of European programs arc described in the text 
below, and are summarized in Table F.l. 



::Eitiiiagt:li:ijeipfa:::::lfl<>tia!rtiie<is 



Description of System 

Research in the City of Guelph was initiated in 1989, with 565 single-family households 
participating in collection trials. The test area was later expanded to include a total of 872 
households. 

The test area was used to measure the variation in diversion and householder acceptance rates 
for an initial 5 different collection scenarios which included various combinations of collection 
in bags and bins (Laird, City of Guelph, 1992, 1993, Nash, CMA, 1993). 



May 1994 PageF-1 



I 



Table F.l 

I 

Summary of Selected Wel/Dry Prqjecl Inrormation 






OMImm.tC. imia) 



a'^^.o^ 



^1 "• 






aiM.Om m**mK 






Kltmjli^^f*.t»m 






aes 



" <fci m^itt* 



msL. 



^tikUttm^m.l 



iisH 



mt) 



*9BB ^LlB 



kBllpi^ll 



Blj ■ ■■ 



tisiaL. 



Bw ■■ 



■I » rfm 



Mr ow.oiai.occ 



fitiua- 



!-■>** 



■fctt 



llHSI 



lis. 



IJAIkBki 



■*■'■»* 



1M1 






-Tsr 



mi 






ii»ii II" ■-,•■--—- 



mti/w 






rii«^i» 



<«) 



IMkTC 



■ l in i in 



W 



a«>M^ii*iM«fi 



»la4Hrf^il 



'"r'-ft-rr'ifr-^ 



■«M»M<i^*f<«l I M l ill*Ml- 



PlU II II ■lllll rf«<K 



I All 
I 



I 






awalJi Wft 



WM-ITk 



MlKfEl 






ikriBi^. aar»»« ii m — 






■■IWI- 






•••^ 



T»»i* M«q BADBi !>»<<■■— 



■ s3 

II 



I- 



Table F.l 
Summary ofSekclcd Wet/Dry Project Inrormalion 



■ >■>«. occ 



Oi^«-i,Uitru-. 

■ m n.lMH iU pii.Mr 



plvta- Ik,. 



taifo 



trrt.wr 






IfijUafc- 



■■I H ** 



OW) Dw ■ M 



litw^w »■<■ — » 



Bar - 1 !■ ■■ Itaa ai hAk 

"TJirtr — r — ^ 









is; inH 



>.?«> 



_L!2 



MilH 



«>« 



Ml 



JJObI Mlltl 



mi IM. 
MiB-M«. 



dit Mac* » — w* » n^matin ^ t^— >*^ fciliri 






Uliit«ca4NcMrfMda^<ff AifML Qiitap ud ■!■■■■ M 






tOt 



Tiri 



>»*)pt>. 1 tfcPi^MH ■iii»ii» tkm fm 



^. lt^*pm<p n i<Mi«»i^l L«wlil») 



■ M»*4*< — »»lcMfc« 



"Jk* 



• mtfl%tltm-mntlMii 



m4mtt 






^^B (rikiAM « DM* ar P 



I, MtrKOsiiitOMiiiiTnMn^^oi 



rfni—ii»irifc>'ipi iTfi 

I,, l»W.^Mil i^^hiMb 



1 ltmmtmmm.t»t<lt 
4 DamAtoMK'ft.UM 



tWasM 



■:iw3 

■ I— PU pa fcll II I I »iT«.' 



■ilMCH 

.rMi.pKB 

mt 



■ta, IMI 



^irtn ^IHMri Wmsa kH 1 to* tall i^ - fc «» 



II, i.»fci..MA.x I ni^« I lulling mi •■■■ncntiLMn.im 

■1 Om,.»m,-ai^^^fa1hltDli t lf m tmu»m-aM.'Mm^lHlmm.»mt..im 

II nt.-«if>i«iiBtMkLHiii*ir.i*r.>Mi 

14 mtCrim.'%m^it^^iiiii^oitm.'»htm 

II oi I r I jtfcfcTi I iHiirmi^hm ■■M>,nn 

11 ■t .' M iiififciwiw H iimw ^ 'iwi 

11 l^ltTllMOiMtOn lfc|h> lW< I ■ 1 1 n MwlM» IWi 



^ 

^ 



1^ 

II 



rt e 

P 
I 



I 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Collection 

Each stream was collected using a separate collection vehicle. Those streams collected in 
plastic bags were collected using a one-side loading packer truck. Streams stored in bins were 
collected with a two-side loading packer truck, equipped with side-mounted hydraulic Ufters. 

Wet Waste Processing 

Wet waste was composted at a 10/tonne/week plant located at the Guelph landfill. This plant 
was specifically constniaed to handle the material generated through the demonstration project. 

The facility is a hybrid, combining features of a static aerated pile and an in-vessel reactor. A 
range of experimental techniques were used to develop a method of removing plastic bags and 
other contaminants from the organic stream. 

Findings 

Findings available to date are as follows: 

• while the clean organic and clean dry streams of a 3 stream system exhibited lower 
contamination rates, 58% of the material found in the garbage stream was either 
compostable (25%) or recyclable (33%); 

• although the capture rate for compostable and recyclable material in a two stream 
. system was higher than that found in a three stream system, materials recovered in 

the dry stream were more contaminated. This may have an affect on their 
marketability. 

Diversion Rates 

• Overall,- results from the pilot study indicate that 60-70% of residential waste 
material could be diverted: 

— the 3 stream system diverted 61% from landfiU 

— the 2 sD'eam system diverted 69% from landfill. 

Quality cf Compost 

• Finished compost produced from both streams was tested against MOEE 
interim guidelines published in November, 1991 (Laird, 1992). The 51-week 
averages consistently met those criteria against which it was tested. Testing 
against the full set of criteria was continuing. The results of tests against the 
full set of MOEE compost quality guidelines were not available at the time of 
preparing this document 

Quality of Dry Recyclables 

• The 3 stream system produced a slightly higher quality of recyclable materials 
than the two stream system. In the 3 stream system, approximately 98.5% of 
materials were uncontaminated and marketable while in the 2 stream 92.5% 
were uncontaminated. 

Bins vs. Bags 

• 75% of the households using bins as collection containers found the wet/dry 
program to be more convenient whereas only 51% of those households using 
plastic bags found wet/diy to be convenient 



May 1994 PageF^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis ■ Service Technical Appendix 



Future Plans 

Due to the potential for higher recovery rates, lower estimated municipal and private sector 
costs, and improved program flexibility, the City of Guelph has decided to adopt the two 
stream apjn'oach for city-wide roll-ouL 

Guelph plans to utilize a two compartment vehicle to enable both wet and diy streams to be 
collected at the same time. Research is underway to develop a collection vehicle to suit these 
needs. Guelph is also investigating a hydraulic mechanism which incorporates a dynamic 
weigh-scale to aUow fw implementation of a direa cost system based on weight, not volume. 

Certificates of Approval have been obtained frcwn the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, 
though construction of the full scale facility for composting and for processing recyclables has 
not begun at the time of preparing this report. The organic waste facility is expected to be 
designed to handle all residential and most IC&I wet wastes. 



City of Mfsslssaiiga Pilot Projec? 



Description of System . 

Launched in October 1991, source separated organics were initially collected from a high-rise 
building, kitchens of Mississauga General Hospital, and four garbage collection routes. A total 
of 3,000 households were involved in the demonstration project. An Executive Summary of 
the repon on this pilot has been published (Proctor & Redfem, 1994). 

The primary objective of the Mississauga wet/dry demionstration project was to test a variety of 
collection systems for source separated organic wastes and to try to identify which collection 
system might strike the best balance of cost effectiveness, convenience, potential for waste 
diversion and high compost quality (Proctor & Redfem, 1992a, 1993, 1994). 

Four combinations of storage and collection systems were tested, including two 2-stream and 
two 3-stream systems. 

A second objective was to demonstrate composting of food and yard wastes using outdoor 
turned windrow technology. The day-to-day operation of the site was contracted to Compost 
Management Associates and was similar to the system that was employed in the Halton 
deinonstration project 

During the first year of operation, about 1 ,(X)0 tonnes of cffganic material were collected within 
the various study areas and delivered to the site for composting. For the period from March to 
December, 1992, yard waste represented about 75% of the material collected at curbside 
(Nash, CMA, 1993). 

Finished compost has been tested against and has met the Ministry of Environment Compost 
Quality Guidelines. Approximately 50 cu.m. of finished material was distributed at public 
giveaway days, another 150 cu.m. were used by the Mississauga Parks and Recreation 
department. About 300 cu.m. were sold to a local nursery for $3.(X) a cubic meter (Nash, 
CMA, 1993). 

Findings 

Some of the findings from the first year of operation include (P&R, 1992a, 1993, Nash, 
CMA, 1993): 

• no single collection approach was identified that seems ideal or suitable for 
recommendation fw a city-wide roll-out; 



May 1994 ''"«« ^'^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Compost quality 

• finished compost from the two- stream collection routes met MOEE guidelines 
for compost quality, but tended to be highly contaminated with inorganic 
contaminants, despite intensive hand-sorting of the incoming feed materials 
(this does not appear to be a sustainable approach to production of first-quality 
grade of compost); 

• "sharps", including pieces of razor blades and hypodermic needles were found 
in screened finished compost from a 2 stream route. This indicates that 
screening alone cannot be counted on to recover all types of contamination. 

In-house and curbside collection containers 

• kraft/cellulose paper bags were preferable in the composting process because 
mechanical debagging technology is not yet available. The major disadvantages 
of using paper bags are that they are bulky in storage, have a high per unit cost, 
and effective methods to distribute them to residents have not yet been 
identilied; 

• in comparison, plasdc bags are inexpensive, and easily available, although they 
pose ccMisiderable problems for debagging of materials; 

• reusable containers work well, but residents need intensive education to prevent 
them from lining the containers with plastic bags. 

Collection 

• brush and Christmas trees should be collected separately from other organics 
because of the difficulty in separating this material from other organic wastes; 

• it is best to start with a limited number of materials (e.g. yard and food waste), 
work out any problems and add more materials (e.g. paper products) gradually. 
Halton did this and had less problem with contamination than any other wet/dry 
program; 

• the driver of the collection vehicle plays an essential role in rejecting bags that 
are extensively contaminated; 

• collection contracts should be structured to reward contractors for hauling the 
maximum amount of clean organics to the composting site, and to discourage 
them from bringing in contaminated organics (e.g. the contractor should haul 
residue from the compost site and pay the city a weight-based residue penalty). 



Diversion 



during the winter, the average daily receipt of waste was as low as 2 tonnes. 
During the spring, this rose to as high as 15 tonnes; 

available data indicate diversion rates of approximately 35% for the three-stream 
system and between 22% (not including recyclables) and 41% for the two- 
stream system. Diversion in some cases improved in 1993' over 1992, 
attributed to increased participation (Proctor and Redfem, 1994). 

recovery of organics for composting generally accounted for more than 50% of 
diversion achieved (Proctor & Redfem, 1994). 



May 1994 PageF-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Residential promotion and education 

• intensive promotion and education is needed to produce good, consistent and 
widespread participation (this is a problem inherent in all other wet/dry 
demonstradons) (Nash, CMA, 1993); 

• participation rates tend to be about 50% and are not sustained (they drop after a 
period of time) (Nash, CMA, 1993); 

• residents need some form of direct feedback, especially concerning 
contamination. The approach should be similar to leaving unacceptable 
materials behind in the recycling container with an explanatory note (Nash, 
CMA, 1993). 



it^t^i#iH«teoiiiiiiaiir«^^ 



Program Description 

For an 18 month period, the Ministry of Environment, Region of Halton and the Town of 
Oakville sponsored a pilot wet/dry demonstration consisting of approximately 600 homes 
located in one neighbourhood in Oakville. The demonstration relied on a three-stream 
collection system, and was designed to gather information on the following: 

• operational details of the three stream collection system; 

• processing requirements for the materials collected in the dry stream; 

• marketability of the processed dry materials; and 

• the quality of the finished compost produced using residential feedstock. 

Collection of the dry stream of the demonstration ran from June 1991, to June 1992. 
Collection of the wet stream continued until the end of October 1992 (Proctor & Redfem, 
1992, Nash, CMA; 1993, Municipality of Halton, 1993). A final report on the pilot project 
has been published (Municipality of Halton, 1993) 

Handling of Wet Wastes 

Households were asked to store and set out organic waste in plastic bags. Small green tinted 
plastic bags were provided for fruit and vegetable scraps, while larger clear plastic bags were 
used for yard waste. Meat scraps, bones, food contaminated paper and diapers were not part 
of.the organic stream, but were to be placed in the third "garbage" stream. Households in the 
study area were initially requested to only put out leaf and yard waste for compost collection. 
N(Mi-meat kitchen wastes were added in (October 1 99 1 . 

Organics were collected with a side loading packer truck and were delivered to a temporary 
composting site located at the Region of Halton Sewage Sludge facility. Collected food and 
yard waste was composted using turned, outdoor windrow technology. Compost 
Management, contractors for the facility, used the Region's SC^AT windrow turner to help 
remove the plastic bags. Plastic that was left after the SCAT machine had passed through the 
material was removed by hand. 

Handling of Dry Recyclables 

Residents were provided with large roll-out carts to store and set out the following recyclables, 
in addition to the traditional recyclable materials: 

• rigid plastic containers; • boxboard; 

• fihn plastics; • fine paper, 

• polystyrene; • tetrapaks; 

• aluminum foil; • textiles. > ' 

• scrap metal; • 

May 1994 PageF-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Dry recyclables were collected using regular hydraulic side loading collection vehicles and were 
delivered to the Region of Halton facility for processing. Results of the dry recycling 
processing trials are summarized in Table E.l (Mercer, 1993, Municipality of Halton, 1993, 
P&R, 1992). , , 

Preliminary Findings ' 

Based on a year of data, a diversion rate of approximately 58% was achieved through the 
Expanded Blue Box and composting collection streams as well as estimates for backyard 
composting. Of this total, 26% diversion was achieved through collection of dry recyclables, 
25% diversion was achieved through curbside collection of compostables, and an estimated 7% 
diversion was achieved through backyard composting. This percentage is lower than the 71% 
that had been anticipated (P&R, 1992). 

Data provided to RIS indicate that of all the waste collected at curbside, approximately 22% 
was diverted through the wet stream and 34% was diverted through the dry stream (when 
collecting expanded list 6f materials) (Municipality of Halton, 1993, Mercer., 1993). 

The three stream curbside collection system was able to divert 85% of the available recyclable 
material and between 58% and 67% of the acceptable compostables (Municipality of Halton, 
1993). 






Description of System 

Approximately 15,(X)0 single family households, located in Etobicoke (2,6(X) in each of two 
areas). North York (8,(XX)) and the City of Toronto (1,500) were involved in Metro Toronto's 
"Pilot Scale, Domestic Source Separated Organics Collection/Processing Project". These areas 
were assunied to be largely English-speaking to allow promotion materials in English only. 
Participants were asked to separate all non-liquid food scraps and trimmings, and all yard 
waste including brush and clippings less than 3 inches in diameter (Sims, Metro Works, 
1993). 

The overall goals of the demonstration were: 

• to determine whether participation rates and quantities recovered are sufficient to 
justify widespread residential wet waste collection; 

• to evaluate the ability of residents to put appropriate, uncontaminated wet waste out 
for collection, so that a usable product may be produced; and 

• to identify an effective container system that encourages participation and allows 
participants to distinguish wet waste from garbage. 

Food Waste Collection Systems , . . , 

In-house collection containers that were tested include: 

• a "kitchen catcher" unit which was used to hold green plastic bags (bags are also 
supplied); and 

• a wire rack equipped with a lid, which was used to hold plastic grocery bags. 

Plastic pails were used as outdoor containers, ranging in size from five gallons in one 
collection area, to 13 gallons in another. All organic material set out at the curb for collection 
was being picked up with either side loading or rear loading packer trucks. 

May 1994 PageFS 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Wet Waste Processing 

Compostablc material collected from the three collection areas was delivered to the former 
ExperimentJil Resource Recovery Plant in Downsview, at the Dufferin Transfer Station site. It 
was composted using the Fairfield-Hardy digester unit that was already in place and was 
modified for this project 

Material was off-loaded from the packer trucks, and large bundles of brush were pulled from 
the piles, either manually or with a small skidsteer loader. The remaining material was loaded 
onto an incline conveyor which fed into a custom designed bag breaking machine. With the 
use of a trommel screen and a magnetic separator, oversized materials and other contaminants 
were separated from the rest of the organics. 

The remaining material was transported to the digesting unit where it was processed for a 
period of seven days. At the end of that period, the partially composted material was 
discharged and transponed to outdoor, aerated storage bunkers, where it was kept for about 
eight weeks, before being screened and moved to a curing pile. 

Preliminary Findings 

• Weekly set-out rates were low in the first few months, at approximately 30%; 

• Of the households that were participating, generation rates were comparable to 
those found in the Guelph Wet/Diy demonstration (Nash, CMA, 1993). 

Areas of Further Research 

• The University of Guelph was conducting growth tests on some of the finished 
compost produced by the Metro Toronto program. The results of the tests were not 
available at die time of preparing this document; 

• Attitudinal and participation studies have been conducted in each of the three study 
areas. The results were not available at the time of preparing this document; 

• A comprehensive^ final report describing the results of all aspects of the 
demonstration is currently being compiled (Ariganello, 1993). 

Gb^d River, British <;oluinbia 

Community Description 

Gold River is located approximately 375 kilometers from Victoria, near the geographic centre 
of Vancouver Island. The population of Gold River is approximately 2,200 (1986 census) 
with 800 residential dwelling units (460 single family units, 180 mobile homes and 160 multi- 
family units). 

Gold River is a relatively wealthy community, with an average household income of $45,000. 
Total employment in the Village is about 1,050 jobs. About 60% of tiiis total arc employed in 
the lumber industry (tree harvesting and a lumber mill). However the economic future of the 
community is uncertain as the mill recently laid-off 150 staff. 

Waste Management Context 

The Village is responsible for the collection and disposal of solid waste for all residents and the 
IC&I sector. In addition, the local null disposes of its non-industrial waste at the Village 
landfill (the mill operates its own landfill for industrial waste disposal). CurrenUy, there is no 
tipping fee for refuse disposal at the Village landfill . 

May 1994 " Page F-9 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Tecfuiical Appendix 



The drive to implement a wet/diy program was the product of a convergence of enviromnental 
and political forces. The environmental pressure was based on the need to find additional 
landfill capacity. In 1990, with no diversion program, the existing landfill had an estimated 10 
years of useful capacity. The Village applied to the BC Ministry of Environment (MOE) for a 
permit to site a new landfill or expand the current operation. The MOE indicated that no 
permits would be provided until the Village implemented a waste diversion program which 
demonstrated an effort to achieve the province's recently adopted 50% diversion target 

At approximately the same time, a group of local citizens were pressuring the local council to 
implement waste diversion. A wet /dry program was part of the list of options prepared by the 
Regional District and was selected fa* two main reasons: 

• it provided the greatest potential for waste diversion; 

• it was perceived as the most publicly acceptable form of residential waste diversion 
(in terras of the level of activity required by the residents). 

Program Description 

Collection and Processing 

The collection fleet consists of several rear packer trucks. These vehicles are used to collect 
residential waste as well as material from the IC&l sector. IC&I locations are provided with 
two 2 cubic yard bulk lift bins, one for dry recyclables and one for organics. Residents use 
plastic bags to collect materials; a blue bag for dry recyclables and regular daric green bags for 
the organics fraction. 

All materials are delivered to a processing centre located at the public works yard. The MRF is 
a fully enclosed 1,200 square metre building which houses all separation equipment and 
provides storage for baled materials. The processing centre consists of an in-ground conveyor 
(approximately 2 metres in length) which feeds material to an incline conveyor. The incline 
conveyor delivers bagged material to rotating carousel. Inside the carousel, two staff manually 
debag dry materials and complete the sorting process. (Bags used to be opened by hand but 
after a number of injuries, electric bag cutters were purchased.) Other processing equipment 
includes a skid steer loader to load bagged material onto the feed conveyor, a magnetic 
separator, a baler and a glass crusher. 

Organic material is processed on the same line with a few additions. For example, a trommel 
screen (approximately 2 metres in length and 1.5 metres in diameter) is used to de-bag organic 
material. As required, the trommel screen is hydraulically positioned in front of the incline feed 
so that bagged material goes through the trommel before it is dropped on the carousel. 

The compost pad is adjacent to the MRF. The 1,200 square metre pad consists of "a pole bam 
structure which provides a roof for cover but is open on all sides. A wire fence was installed 
around the facility parameter to prevent bears from entering the composting area. The pad is 
made from concrete and is sloped to provide drainage for excess moisture. Liquids drain into 
the municipal sewer system and are treated in the sewage plant, 

Qpe^tion 

Residents are asked to separate their waste stream into dry and organic fractions for collection. 
A listing of the materials collected in each stream is provided in the table below. Each stream 
of material is collected by the municipality once per week. Residential dry waste is collected 
Mondays and organics on Tuesdays. IC&;I waste is collected during the rest of the week. 

Dry materials are collected in a transparent blue plastic bag which must be purchased by 
residents. Organics can be stored in regular garbage bags. The municipality also collects the 
same two streams frtrni the IC&I sector. Each IC&I location is provided with two 2 cubic yard 

bins, one for each stream. 

May 1994 PageF-10 



Ministry of Environmenl and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis • Service Technical Appendix 



Readents and the IC&I sector arc directed not to mix hazardous material with cidier the wet or 
dry fractions. Instead, residents and employers are asked to store these materials at their 
residence or business until a proper hazardous waste collection program can be developed. 
However, hazardous material does end up in cither the dry or wet streams and is disposed at 
the Village landfill. 

Table F.2 
Gold River Material Sorting Requirements 





el Wmu' 


Ha£ard0*is Waste 


Paper 


Food Scraps 


aeiDSol spray cans 


(i.e. newspaper, txnboard and 


(i.e. Iwead, cheese, mcau. 


ant traps 


magazines 


vegetables, etc.) 


anti-freeze 






batteries 


Glass 


Yard Waste 


bteach 


(Le. nnsed bottles and jars an0 


(i.e. brush, grass clippings and 


brake fluid 


drinking glasses) 


leaves) 


chemicals 
gasoline 


Metal 


Other Wet Waste 


herbicides 


(i.e. food and beverage containers 


(i.e. ashes, disposable diapers, 


household cleaners 


and aluminum foil 


kitty litter and tissues) 


insecticides 
light bulbs 


Plastic 




medicines 


(i.e. bags, containers and wrap) 




mouv oil 
nail polish 


Other Dry Waste 


• 


oil filters 


(i.c. clothing, juice containers. 


., 


paint 


wood and milk cartons) 


.•■ " ■ 


paint thinners 
solvent 
syringes 




' 


lurpenune 



At the MRF, recyclables are separated by hand into six different streams: old newspaper, glass, 
PET, natural HDPE and other plastics, and metal containers. The remaining blue bag material 
is diverted off the carousel through a cross belt magnetic separator and a shredder after which it 
is taken to the composting area. 

ONP, PET and HDPE are baled and stored until sufficient quantity has been collected to justify 
a shipment to market. Other plastics are baled and landfilled. The market for glass in this area 
is not viable and therefore is used as cover at the landfill. Metal containers arc hand-sorted by 
brand name and stored in clear plastics bags until a sufficient quantity has been collected for 
baling. 

On the composting side, bagged material is passed through the trommel screen with blades. 
Waste less than three-inches in size falls through the screen. This material is later collected 
shredded and composted. The remaining contents of the organics stream are conveyed to the 
carousel where recyclables and other non-compostable materials are removed by hand and a 
magnetic separator. Ccwnpostable material is shredded and sent to the storage area until enough 
material for a pile has been collected, which usually takes two weeks. 



May 1994 



PageF-n 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



All composting is done using static piles and negative aeration. Building piles is a four step 
process: 

• first, over-sized composted material (S/8 inch material which did not pass dirough 
the screening process ftom previous piles) is placed on the concrete pad to form the 
pile's bed; 

• second, a perforated pipe - which is connected to a blower - is placed on the bed. 
The blower can push air into the pile or it can remove air, 

• third, size-reduced organic material is piled approximately two metres high, two 
metres wide and four metres in length; 

• fourth, the pile is covered with compost. 

The pile is allowed to compost for about six weeks at an average temperature of 45° C to 60°C. 
During this period, oxygen is drawn out of the pile using the perforated pipe and blower. 
Negative aeration was found to produce a more constant temperature in the pile compared to 
forced aeration. After six weeks, the pile is turned and water is added as required. The pile is 
left to compost for another six weeks. Near the end of this cycle, air is pumped into the pile to 
help dry the material which is then screened again. 

Finished compost is used by the municipality for various public works projects in the Village. 

Aversion 

Table F.3 summarizes the anKnint of waste handled and quantities diverted for 1993. 

• The table shows that a total of 890 tonnes of municipal solid waste was collected by 
the Village in 1993. This total includes all residential and IC&I sources in the 
Village plus non-industrial waste generated by the local paper mill. 

• Approximately 265 tonnes of waste was not processed at the Village processing 
centre was sent direcdy to landfill. The majority of this total is non-industrial 
waste firom the local mill which does not participate in the wet/dry program; a small 
percentage Is municipal solid waste from the Village which was landfiUed when the 
processing centre was not operating because of mechanical breakdowns. 

• A total of 630 tonnes of waste was sent to the processing centre in 1993. About 
60% of this total, or 380 tonnes was wet waste. The remaining 40%, or 250 
tonnes, was dry waste. 

• Of the 630 tonnes processed at the MRF and compost facility, 110 tonnes were 
separated and landfilled. 

• A total of 520 tonnes of waste was separated for recycling or composted. 
Therefore the rate of diversion in 1993 was 58%, Recovery rates for individual 
materials were not available. 



May 1994 Page F -12 



Ministry of Ennronment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table F.5 
Summary of 1993 Gold River Waste Generation and Diversion (tonnes) 



Waste 
Collected 



Direct to 
Landfill 



Gross 

Dry 

Str«aai 



Wet 
Streim 



Total 

dross 

W«l/Dry 



Wet/Dry 
Uftdniled 



Wet/Dry 
Diverted 



DWtrstea 




890 



265 



250 



380 



630 



110 



520 



80% 



Source: Village of Gold River, April 1994. 



Participation . • . 

According to Village staff, an estimated 50% of households and IC&I locations regularly 
separate wet and dry waste into the correct fractions. For the remaining population, the 
contents of the wet stream tend to be contanunated with household hazardous goods and dry 
recyclables. The wet stream tends to be relatively more contaminated than the bag with dry 
recyclables. Village staff speculate that the reason for this difference is related to the types of 
bags used to collect materials. The dry stream is collected in a transparent bag; as a result 
contamination is relatively easy to see. In contrast, the wet stream is collected in a dark 
coloured bag which masks the contents of the bag until it is opened. 

Another possible reason for the high rates of contamination is the lack of promotion and 
education suppon. During the first 12 months of start-up, a grant provided by Proctor and 
Gamble provided funds for a promotion and education program. However, ^ter the grant 
period ended in August, 1993, council did not provide funds to continue the program which 
then had to be eliminated. 

Program Costs 

The capital cost of the Gold River wet dry program was $1.4 million. This total includes the 
cost of all processing equipment, the MRF building and compost pad. The community 
received a $300,000 grant from the province, and therefore' was left with a net capital cost of 
$1.1 million. No additional collection equipment was required because the community uses its 
existing rear packer fleet • . 

Operating costs for the wet dry program in 1993 are outlined in Table F.4. The table shows 
that annual operating costs total $421,500. This total includes $360,400 in operation costs and 
$96,300 in annual capital costs. The total cost of the program on a per tonne basis is 
$473/tonne. The operating cost of the program is $365/tonne. 

As there are no landfill tip fees, the entire cost of the program is paid through the local 
assessment 



May 1994 



PageF-13 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table F.4 
1999 Wet/Dry Program Costs and Revenues 



Wages 

Collection and Disposal 

Recycling and Composting 

Benefits 
Total Wages and Benefits 
Supplies and Materials 
Garbage Qmtainer Maintenance 
Landfill Maintenance 
Recycling Plant Services/Supplies 
Q>nqx>sting Services/Supplies 
Recycling Plant Heat and Electric 
Consulting 
Recycling Education 
Gross Operating Costs 
Operating Grants (from Proctor and Gamble) 
Net Operating Costs . 
Tcmnes Collected 
Operating Cost/Tonne 



$99,800 

115,300 

37.700 



$252,800 

$10,200 

7,400 

19,000 

19.000 

7,800 

11,300 

19,400 

13.500 



$360,400 

-35.200 



$325,200 

35,200 

$365 



Angttil ' Uipitailij^i 



Annual Capital Cost for Processing Centre 
(cjq>ital amortized over 10 years) 
Interest on capital (7% per annum)* 
Total Annual Capital Costs 

Total Annual Expenses 



$90,000 



96,300 
$421,500 



Annual Cost/Tonne 



$473 



♦Interest paid by the Village on annual capital is a variable rate. For the purpose of this 
analysis, a 7% rate of interest has been assunied. 



Program Assessment 

The overall goal of the wet/dry program was to meet or exceed the province's 50% waste 
diversion goal. The tirget has been achieved with a 58% diversion rate for all waste (residential 
and IC&I) in 1993. The baseline for this measure is all municipal solid waste collected in 
1993. The level of ccmfidence in this weight is high as all waste is weighed on a scale before it 
is landfilled or enters the processing centre. 

The success of this program is measured primarily by the level of diversion achieved. While 
program costs are a concern, they are not a barrier to the achievement of diversion targets. As 
stated by a Village staff person, "No matter what the cost or the problems, what counts is 
achieving something." 



May 1994 



PageF'M 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Overall, Village staff are satisfied with the way in which the program was implemented and 
operated. The MRF equipment is adequately sized to process the current volume of material. 
If additional processing capacity is required, this can be achieved by adding a third soner to the 
current operation or extemling the hours of operation. 

However, according to Village staff, three main problems need to be resolved in order to 
improve the operational efficiency of the wet/dry program. 

The first problem concerns promotion and education. Through the implementation process, 
staff have learned that a long-term commitment to on-going promotion and education is 
essential. For the Gold River program, this commitment was not obtained from council and it 
is believed that the current lack of promotional support has impacted directly on the degree to 
which residents regularly sort materials properly. TTiis in turn has a direct impact on the cost of 
processing materials. The barrier to obtaining the local council's support for a part-time 
promotion program is money and perhaps a lack of understanding with respect to the 
importance of on-going pronx)tion. 

The second problem is household hazardous waste. Currently, the wet/dry program is not 
equipped to collect or store hazardous materials. Provincial commitments for regular collection 
days have not been realized and the community cannot afford to pay for these programs 
tiiemselvcs. As a result, residents are asked to store these materials in their homes until a 
collection program can be funded. However, residents are mixing hazardous waste with the 
wet and dry streams, and this is eventually landfilled. 

TTie final problem is identifying and securing markets for recyclables. The community is 
distant from viable markets and relatively high costs of transponation are incurred to ship 
materials to market. One possible solution which is currently being explored is the 
establishment of a marketing cooperative for all recycling programs oft Vancouver Island. 

A related issue is the quantity of plastic packaging material which currently have no market. In 
Gold River, the ratio between plastics which have no markets to those which are technically 
marketable is 6:1 by volume. The collection and processing of non-marketable plastic 
packaging is viewed as a significant problem in Gold River because it adds to the overall cost 
of the collection, processing and disposal operation. 

In terms of future plans, the Gold River's Regional District is currentiy preparing a regional 
waste management plan. As a result, the future of the wet dry program is somewhat uncertain 
while the planning process is underway. However, two likely scenarios are that the Gold 
River land^ll could be closed with its waste sent to another jurisdiction; in addition, the wet/dry 
plant could be processing material from other near-by communities. 



jifeiijatittatldlj^NetheHaildii 



Lemsterland is a single municipality within the Dutch province of Friesland. It contains several 
small villages including the Town of Lemmer which is die largest. The recycling programme 
includes the entire municipality of Lemsterland, a significant pan of which is rural. In total, 
there are about 12,000 people or about 4,500 households. 

The regional waste management authority of Friiesland is OLAP - it is responsible for the 
operation of the transfer station and the transportation of collected materials to their ultimate 
destination. All materials are delivered to the VAM in Wijster where there is a landfill, a MRF, 
a composting facility and where the construction of an incinerator is planned. 



May 1994 PageF-lS 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Material Collected 

The Lemsterland programme addresses the full residential waste stream providing for the 
separate collection of ten categories of waste materials; 

PMD (plastics, metals and drink cartons); 

paper (newspaper, cardboard.magazines, and other household papers); 

organics (kitchen and garden materials but not meat waste); 

rest (non-recyclables and non-compostables); 

glass (scnne colour separation); 

textiles (old clothing); 

bulky wastes (large items such as refrigerators, ovens, beds, etc.); 

bulky garden wastes (tree stumps, bundled branches, etc.); 

household hazardous wastes; 

used motor oil. . . 

Collection Method 

PMD. paper, organics and rest: 

The most significant feature of the Lemsterland collection programme is the utilization of the 
Double Dual Container system. Each household is provided with two (one green and one 
grey) 240 litre wheeled bins, both equipped with a fixed partition and hinged tid. Each 
ccmipartment is equal in volume. 

Residents are required to source separate their waste materials as follows: the grey bin is for 
the PMD and paper fractions. The green bin is for the organic and rest fractions. The set out 
of these bins occurs on alternate weeks. In other words, one week the green bin goes out; 
during the next week, the grey bin goes out. At both times, residents must place their bins at 
designated collection points marked on the sidewalk by a yellow square. Residents must 
retrieve the bins after they have been emptied. These bins vary in cost but are approximately 
$260 (Cdn) each. 

One special dual compartment vehicle is used to collect the materials utilising one driver and 
two loaders. It is made by Geesink and costs about $450,000 (Cdn). The vehicle's collection 
chamber is horizontally split to match the wheeled bins. The truck can hoist and dump two 
bins at a time, spilling the contents of each bin compartment into its matching truck 
compartment. Collected materials arc lightiy "compacted" (however, the paper fraction does 
not "compact" well). The upper compartment is 12 cu. m while the lower is 8 cu. m. When 
the grey bins are collected, the paper fraction goes into the upper compartment while the PMD 
goes into the lower. When the green bins are collected, the organic fraction goes into the upper 
while the rest fraction going into the lower. 

All 4,500 households are serviced in 4.5 days, Monday to Friday, which means that about 
1,000 households arc serviced each day. In the more urban areas (e.g. Lemmer), up to 1,500 
households can be serviced. The truck must leave the collection route after 550-600 bins have 
been emptied (averages about 2 loads/day). When the grey bins are collected, it is usually the 
upper truck compartment containing the paper fraction which fills up first (thereby forcing the 
truck to empty both compartments at the transfer station - 5 minute drive nonh of Lemmer). 
The upper compartment may not be completely full since the paper fraction does not "compact" 
as well as the PMD. 

With the green bins, the organic fraction usually fills its truck compartment first, but only 
during the summer (or garden maintenance) months. During the winter, the organics 

May 1994 ' PageF'16 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



compartment is often only half full when the truck must leave the route with a full lower 
compartment (the rest fraction). 

Ql^ss 

Glass bottles and jars are collected via a dense drop-off (or bring) network involving single- 
chamber "igloos". Altogether, there are 23 drop-off sites widi 41 individual igloos. The 
density of (£x>p-off sites is therefore one per 520 inhabitants. Nine of the busier sites have 
three igloos each for the colour separation of the glass (white, green and brown). The busy 
sites are serviced two or more times per week. At less busy sites, glass is colour mixed in a 
single igloo. These sites are usually serviced at least once per week or liiay operate on an on- 
call basis. . 

Textiles or old clothing is collected like glass. There are five steel bins that are serviced as 
required by a local charity organisation. They report monthly tonnages to the municipality. 

Bulky wastes fnon-organic and organic^ 

There are two separate bulky waste collections involving large household durable goods and 
large garden waste materials. Essentially, these waste materials cannot fit into the dual wheeled 
bins. Each household receives two bulky waste collections per month - the first may occur in 
the middle of the month for the bulky (non-organic) wastes and the second (large garden 
waste) may occur towards the end of the month. Plastic bags full of cut grass for example can 
be set out for the bull^ ganien waste collection rather than placed in the dual bin. 

Household hararHnns wfl«Hw<; 

Each Lemsterland household is provided with a plastic storage box (most are 27 litre) for the 
containment of household hazardous materials (HHW). It is somewhat "child-proof. Every 
two months, two days are identified as curbside collection days; Residents who have materials 
to be collected must place a specially provided yellow card (30 by 20 cm) in a front window so 
that the collection vehicle can spot it. The "chemocar" driver must collect the HHW direcdy 
from each resident since it is against Dutch law to set such materials out at the kerb. Residents 
who are not home during the day can take advantage of drop-off or bring sites which are 
staffed specially designated times only. 

The HHW collection programme is operated by a specialized firm (ATF) hcensed to provide 
the service throughout Frieslaiid. They actually use various coUecticHi vehicles which typically 
have six or seven compartments allowing the driver to sort the HHW into the appropriate 
containers. 

Oil 

Used motor oil can be deposited into specially provided igloos. The primary problem with this 
system is that these igloos are likely to overflow during the summer months since Lemmer in 
particular is a popular vacation destination for boating enthusiasts (they have 14 marinas and 
about 3,0(X) boat slips). To resolve this problem, the municipality has moved the five oil 
igloos from separate sites to one site which is located in the works yard where it can be 
supervised Recovery levels will probably decrease. 



May 1994 PageF-17 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Material Recovery Rates .: . 

Detailed material recovery data are available for the PMD, paper, organic, rest, and glass 
fractions. Household hazardous waste is reported to be about 20 tonnes/year. Bulky waste is 
about 1,000 tonnes/year. Roughly 30 tonnes of textiles are recovered annually. About 25 
ttMincs of oil were recovered in 1991 . 

Table F.5 presents material recovery data for the Etouble Dual Container and glass igloo 
systems; ftom the beginning of the programme in May 1991, through to the end of the year. 
During the first 20 weeks, the number of household served was 2,205. This increased to 
4,526 few the remaining 13 weeks of 1991 (and up to the present). 



Table F.5 
Lemsterland Material Recovery - 1991 data 







)cg/lioitaebQl<t/3retr . 


PMD 


200 


65 


paper 


597 


136 


oTganics 


976 


321 


glass 


258 


88 


TOTAL 


2,031 


610 



A neighbouring municipality called Boamsterhem with 7,000 households collects glass and 
paper once a week. No household container is provided and a custom designed, multi- 
container collection vehicle collects the material. Other materials including metals, HHW Mid 
textiles are collected on the fifth day using the same vehicle. Very approximate recovery 
figures arc reported to be as follows: 



Boarnsterham Material Recovery - 1991 data 



m^^^frmmm^^gmm^f^tmm 



k g/househo|4/ye«r 



^nn^mt^mm^mm^li^ 



||jil«rlai 



Toniies/yeitr 



paper 



1.300 



1^6 



glass 



450 



64 



It is interesting to n.ote that Lemsterland collects more glass per inhabitant using a dense 
network of igloos than Boamsterhem's weekly curbside collection system. On the other hand, 
the recovery of paper per household is lower. 

Promotion 

The sequence of prcnnotional materials dissenunated was as follows: 



an official letter announcing the programme; 
detailed calendar with sorting instructions; 



May 1994 



PageF-18 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Tecfutical Appendix 



• three newsletters over the first 12 months of the progranime; 

• periodic articles in a local newspaper. 

However, the calendar with the detailed instructions is complicated and not useful as a quicic 
reference guide. Also, stickers that are pasted on the outside of the bins would should be 
complemented by smaller, simpler stickers placed inside the individual bin compartments. 

In order to enforce househokl source separation behaviour, the municipality utilizes a system of 
reminder cards. If a resident receives two cards, the municipality sends them a letter asking for 
their cooperation. If three cards are received, the municipality makes a telephone call to the 
non-complying resident. If a red card is received, the municipality will not collect from that 
household (there are about 7-8 such households). A visual inspection of full bins and of the 
actual collection procedure suggests that cards are handed out for gross infractions only. 

Program Costs 

The approximate cost of collection via the double dual container system is $175/tonne (Cdn)., 
This cost figure apparently is all-inclusive, however, since cenain pans of the programme have 
been subsidized the costs may be distorted. 

The following costs are being incurred: 

organics $ 1 35Aonne (Cdn) (shipment + composting cost) 

rest $350/tonne ((3dn) (shipment plus landfill tip fee) 

PMD $8(ytonne (Cdn) (shipment only, no processing cost during pilot) 

paper SAQ/tanne (CMn) (shipment only, no processing cost during pilot) 

The cost of waste management is paid for through local tax. This cost is actually hidden in the 
gas bill. Costs have risen dramatically over the past three years mostly as a result of the 
increase in landfill tip fees, and were: 

1990 $235/household/year (Cdn) 

1991 . $4(X)/househoId/year (can) 

1992 $407/household/year (Cdn) 

With respect to the $160 (Cdn) increase from 1990 to 1991, $120 (Cdn) can be attributed to the 
rise in tip fees, with $40 (Cdn) attributed to the purchase of the truck and the double dual 
container system. 

The collection of household hazardous waste costs the municipality about $135,600/year 
(Ckin). Collection costs for glass and textiles are covered by the private and non-profit 
organizations recovering those materials. 

Problems Encountered 

There are four major problems that have emerged as the programme has evolved: 

• contamination of the PMD fraction with paper - a quantity of paper materials in the 
PMD fraction has reccndy been identified as significant. While paper and glass 
fractions have shown a purity of 96% and 92% respectively, the PMD reached a 
recent low purity rating of 60-70% (that is, 30-40% of the material is not PMD). 
Reasons for this contamination are most likely a combination of (i) residents 
inconecdy sorting paper materials in the PMD compartment and/or (ii) at the point 

May 1994 PageF-19 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



of collection, the paper fraction is spilling into the lower (PMD) compartment of the 
truck; 

fly-blown plastics at die point of collection - because the Geesink truck hoists the 
wheeled bins about 4 metres high, the probability of wind lifting light plastic 
materials away ftom the truck is high. The Geesink "curtain" barriers on either side 
of the compartment openings have not contained the problem. Staff are currently 
experimenting with metal fitting around the openings to see if the problem can be 
resolved. 

dual bin compartments are possibly too narrow - programme operators have 
observed jamming of PMD and paper (especially cardboard) materials in the double 
dual containers. If the municipality could start again they would provide residents 
with 280 litre containers instead of 240 litre; 

cleaning of bins - this is the responsibility of residents. A private firm offered to 
provide a cleaning service for the municipality at $4.80/bin (Cdn) but this was 
considered too expensive. There have been some complaints about this since 
people either do not clean them (offensive odours) or they clean them in the street 
(rinse waste is poured into a sewer in front of the houses). Starting over, the 
municipahty would have hidden the cleaning cost in the overall cost of the 
programme and residents would never have known. 



District of U>itett&mii» Novii ScoOlj 



The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg and the towns of Bridgewater, Lunenburg, and 
Mahone Bay conducted a pilot Wet/Dry program from September, 1992 to mid-February, 
1993. 

A three- stream approach was adopted for the pilot program. It covered 982 households in all 
four municipalities. The wet stream included kitchen and yard waste. Roll-out carts 
(Compostainers) were provided for the organics stream. Blue Bags were used for commingled 
recyclables - tin and aluminum containers, glass, ONP, PET soft drink containers and plastic 
shopping bags. Weekly collection was provided in the towns and bi-weekly collection was 
provided in die rural areas at the same level of service as regular garbage collection (LURA 
Group, 1993). 

A high participation rate was achieved. 70% of residents reported setting-out organics for 
curbside collection. 60% of those not using the carts reported using backyard composters 
instead. 90% of residents set-out recyclables in the Blue Bags at least monthly. 

Contamination of recyclables was approximately 30%, mostiy related to incorrect set-out of 
plastics. However, broken glass in newsprint was also a problem. The organics stream was 
repeated to have little contamination. 

Diversion of organics was reported to be 23% while diversion of dry recyclables (recorded 
only from mid-CX;tober to mid-December) was reported to be 7%. It was estimated that 
backyard composting diverted an additional 5% of the waste stream. 

During the winter months waste generation was reduced. This was noted in all streams, 
particuiarly in the organics stream, due to lower yard waste generation. Freezing of organics in 
the roll-out carts was experienced but was not considered a problem during the course of the 
pilot. , ■ 

♦ 

May 1994 PageF-lO 



Ministry of Ennronment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



From the surveys (three were conducted, at the beginning of the project, after phase 1 in the 
fall, and after phase 2 in the winter) high acceptance by participants was indicated. 85% 
reported that the program was "above average" while 2 in 3 residents preferred the system to 
regular garbage collection. 

Other Projects 

Table F. 1 summarizes available data on a number of two, three and four stream wet/dry 
projects. 

iiuiilililiiiiiiiiiii-iiiii— — *^»— »^-^^^i^^-^^^ 

Description of Program 

During the spring of 1993, a curbside compost collection pilot was launched by the City of St. 
Thomas in co-operation with Green Lane Environmental and SSI Schaefer Canada. The 
purpose of the pilot was to test the viability and public acceptability of anorganics collection 
system using a ventilated container called the "Compostainer". 

About 1,200 households were involved with the pilot Each household was given: 

• a 64 gallon Schaefer compostainer, 

• a kitchen counter bin and a sticker (to remind participants what was and was not 
acceptable in the program); 

• an information package containing information on how the Compostainer worked, a 
brochure explaining die pilot program and the collection schedule, information on a 
workshop, helpful hints, and a telephone number in case panicipants had any 
questions. 

A standard Shu Pack side loader equipped with a setni-automatic Ufter was used to collect 
organics. The truck is operated by a one-person crew. 

Organics were collected bi-weekly, and processed at an in-vessel facility. 

Since the pilot, the program has been implemented city-wide. No results arc available to date. 

District of (jiesseit, Germaily^lsyulli^iife Proeram .'^^ 

Community Description 

The District of Giessen is located near the centre of (former) West Germany. The District 
includes 18 municipalities of various sizes. The total population of the District is 230,000 
. (1991 data), with about 106,000 households. 

Waste Management Context 

The District is responsible for all waste management activities for the 18 municipalities. Many 
changes have occurred over the last twenty years, from municipal solid waste composting in 
the early 1970's to die implementation of the German Green Dot system in 1992 (private 
collection system for packaging waste). Residents of the District have been anti- incineration 
since the late 1980's, therefore there was a need to examine and implement odier waste 
management alternatives. The District is currently achieving a 40% diversion rate (which 
includes 24% recycling, 18% composting, and 2% waste reduction and reuse). 

May 1994 PageF-21 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appenehx 



Waste transportation and landfill tipping fees are currently over $30(ytonne (Cdn). 

Program description 

The most widely promoted waste reduction initiative is home composting. About 10% of the 
District's households have become involved with home composting during the last five years. 

A three bin system is used to collect recyclable paper, food and yard waste, and remaining 
waste. All material is colleaed by a private hauler as follows: 

• a blue rollout cart (typically 240 litres) is used to collect specific residential fibres on 
a mcmthly basis using a rear pack^ collection vehicle with two cart lifters; 

• household packaging that has been marked with the Green Dot -e.g. boxboaid, 
plastic bottles, etc., is collected every two weeks using large, yellow bags supplied 
to the householder. Bags are coUecteid in a rear packer, 

• a brown, ventilated rollout cart (typically 240 litres) is used to collect residential 
organics (food and yard waste) every two weeks using a rear packer collection 
vehicle equipped with two cart lifters. Carts are placed at the curb for collection. 
The first type of carts tested were unventilated, however there were many resident 
and driver complaints about odour. 

Regular waste and organics are collected on alternating weeks. Organics are delivered to a 
centralized composting facility where they arc placed in windrows. Organics are also collected 
from IC&I sources - the material is kept in separate windrows because different management 
techniques are required. 

Contamination levels for recyclable and organic materials is low - about 3%. 

The District also runs drop-off depots for glass containers located throughout the area. Drop- 
off depots are serviced weekly, except for some depots in high traffic areas which need more 
frequent servicing. Green Dot packaging is also collected at some depot locations. 

The annual budget for the District is $16 million. Operating costs for residential organics 
collection and composting is $2,625,000. The District sells the compost and compost revenue 
is estimated at about 20% of composting .operating costs. 

Results 

The following participation rates have been estimated for the program: 

• 95% monthly residential fibre recycling participation; 

• 60% participation for glass container drop-off; 

• 80% participation for biweekly collection of residential organics. 

Recovery rates for participating households have also been estimated. In general, the quantity 
of material recovered from households in the larger urban centres is higher than in smaller, 
more rund communities. The estimates for the City of Giessen are: 

• 270 kg/hh/yr of food and yard waste/participating household; 

• 200 kg/hh/yr of fibres/participating household; 

• 70 kg/hh/yr of glass/participating household. . 

May 1994 ' PageF-22 



■ Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



All residential waste management costs are paid by the taxpayer. On average, a household is 
charged about $200/yr (Cdn), or between $65 -75/person. The unit operating cost for the 
waste diversion program is estimated at $180-190/tonne (Cdn). 

One issue the program has encountered is odours from the composting facility. Odours 
continue to be a problem during the summer months. Composting wet grass has caused the 
most problems and resulted in a temporary ban on the collection of grass during the summer of 
1992. 



il^wwoSiltfaiich^itiliUnta^ 



In May 1994, Markham and the Ministry of Environment and Energy launched a "Model 
Community Demonstration Project" to test two new waste collection and recycling processing 
systems. 

The conununity (including about 3,400 households) is divided into two areas. Residents in 
both areas will be able to recycle a wider range of materials. 

The first area - the "Blue Bag Area" is testing a wet/dry collection system servicing 2,300 
households. Residents and asked to separate their wastes into three streams including: 

• expanded recyclables (placed in blue bags); . * 

• compostables: 

— leaf and yard waste (diverted either through backyard composters or curbside 
collection of plastic bags); 

— kitchen waste that is diverted through backyard composters and other organic 
waste (meat, cheese, diapers, etc.) that is stored in plastic kitchen containers, 
then placed in blue boxes with lids at the curb for collection; 

• garbage that is placed on the curb in a plastic bag. « 

A specially designed co-collection truck fueled with natural gas collects the garbage and 
compostable stream one week, and then the recyclable and compostable stream the next week. 
The truck has dual compartments with a total volume capacity of 56 cubic yards (18 cubic yard 
compartment for the kitchen and yard waste, and 38 cubic yard compartment for die recyclables 
and refuse). Both compartments allow for variable compaction rates, depending on die type of 
material collected. • 

The second area, the "Expanded Blue Box Area" includes 900 households. Residents in this 
area are also asked to separate their wastes into three streams including: 

• recyclables which are placed in a blue box. Residents will receive an extra blue box 
to collect an expanded list of recyclables; 

• leaf and yard waste are placed in a plastic bag and picked up at the curb; 

• other waste which arc placed at the curb in a plastic bag. 

The expanded blue box items will be collected every other week by a specially designed nuck 
with nine compartments. 



May 1994 PageF-23 



Ministry cf Ennronment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The model demonstration project was started in early May. It is expected to achieve a 75% 
waste diversion and decrease processing and collection costs by about 30%. The project will 
run until April 1995. The results of the project are expected to be published after this period. 

References 

Ariganello, V., Metro Works DepL Oct., 1993. Personal communication 

Bennet, C, Cave, R and Associates. Source Separated Waste Collection Issues. 1988 

Beyea, J., et al., "Composting Plus Recycling Equals 70% Diversion." BioCycle. May, 1992 

Canada Composting Inc. Newmarket Pilot Composting Program. July, 1992 

City of Guelph, City of Guelph WetlDry Pilot Project: Summary of Preliminary Findings. 
Aug., 1991 

Darcy, S., "Communities Put Wet/Dry Separation to the Test." World Wastes. Aug., 1993 

"Evaluating The Wet/Dry Option." BioCycle. May, 1993 

Glen, J., "Pulling Compostables from the Residential Stream." BioCycle. May, 1993 

Laird, J., City of Guelph Engineer's Dept. 1993. Personal communication 

Laird, J., City of Guelph Engineer's Dept. Presentation to the riecycling Council of Ontario, 
Ottawa, Oct., 1992 

LURA Group, Final Report : Wet/Dry Recycling Pilot Project for Municipality of the District 
of Lunenburg, and the Towns of Bridgewater, Lunenburg and Mahone Bay," April, 
1993 

LURA Group, Town of Markham's Demonstration Model Community Programme. Nov., 
1992 

Mercer, A., Halton Public Works. Oct., 1992. Personal communication 

Municipality of Halton, 1993. Expanded Blue Box/Composting Pilot Project. Final Report, 
December 1993. 

Nash, C., Compost Management & Associates. 1993. Personal communication 

Proctor & Redfem, City ofMississauga's Waste Minimization Demonstration Pilot Project: Six 
Month Status Report. Sept., 1992a 

Proctor & Redfem, Memorandum Waste Minimization Demonstration Pilot (Compost) 
Project: June. 1992a 

Proctor & Redfem, St. Lawrence Cement Fuel Cost Reduction Study - Final Report on the 
Third Bag R^idual Composition Study. Sept., \992 

RIS, 1992. Lemsterland, Netherlands Site Visit Report, May, 1992 

mS, \994. Gold River Site Visit Report, 1994 

Rivers, R., City of Mississauga. Oct., 1993. Personal communication 

St. Thomas Curbs ide Composting Pilot Project Report. November, 1993 

Sims, Kathy, Asst. Mgr., Waste Reduction & Recycling Solid Waste Management Division of 
Metro Toronto Works Dept., The Green Wave of Recycling, June 24, 1993 



May 1994 PageF-24 



SCHEDULE G 
MIXED WASTE PROCESSING 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Techniccd Appendix 



SCHEDULE G — MIXED WASTE PROCESSING 

Introduction 

Mixed Solid Waste (MSW) processing involves collecting unseparated waste at the point of 
generation, and taking it all to a material processing facility. There, recyclable fractions are 
removed, processed and marketed, and the organic materials are composted. The residue is 
sent to landfill. 

Some facilities focus particularly on composting while others focus on incineration. Some 
facilities also process sewage sludge with the mixed solid waste, a practice known as co- 
composting A selection of case studies is presented at the end of this Section. A summary 
of selected programs is presented in Table G. 1 . 

Benefits of Mixed Waste Composting 

Proponents of mixed solid waste processing Ust the following benefits: 

• Simplicity of Collection 

Waste can be collected in a single truck and does not require source separation. It 
might be expected that this should translate into cost savings, although this issue 
is subject to debate due to processing implications (Hammer, 1992). 

• Facility Requirements 

Rather than having several different processing facilities, this is centralized into a 
single, co-ordinat^ venture, which is said to be easier to administer and operate. 

• Development of a Useful Product from Waste 

SigniHcant portions of waste are reduced in volume. Portions that are landfilled 
require less volume and help extend landfill life. 

• Increases Recycling 

By removing the need for residential participation in source separation, and 
carrying out all separation at a centralized plant, some proponents argue that 
recovery of recyclable s is increased. This too, is subject to debate (Lundell, 1992, 
Gitiin, 1992, Apotfieker, 1991, Hammer, 1992). 

Limitations of Mixed Waste Processing 

The majority of mixed waste composting programs currently operating are experiencing a 
number of difficulties. Specific problems encountered by some facilities include the 
following: 

Odour 

Most mixed solid waste processing plants that compost organics at some time have been 
forced to counter odour problems. Odours at composting plants result from the biological 
activity associated with decomposition of organic materials. For some, such as the Portland, 
Oregon, Reidel facihty, this was one of the factors which contributed to their closure (CMA, 
1992, Goldstein, 1992, 1992a). 



May 1994 PageG-l 



Tabled 
Summary of Selected Mixed Waste Processing Facilities 



OnlMMtJA 

EkhMlFL 

Rmlilr.WA 

Oj. HN 



lkibl|DOy T\ 

l.^c e4 tir WoKk Or. MN 

Utniik. AZ 

Mdi.MN 

Ni«cHiii,De 



Oy.MN 



StrinriUt. TN 
SI CliMd.HN 

Civ.H. 

Srtll flj, MN 



. Cun 



H 



in*" 




1M(, 
IM1 

l«IT 

All|-91 

luMI 



73 



feifdwn 



■Hii pK. •a™ 



ITS. 
321 



Rn/CoMl pim). r>l •indiow, iciwn mcl calaf 
Ml Knxraun ■•«*■ "»*«» 

a7 



;7i 

77 
II 



Kra/Conun 
2; Rci/Conini 

M BfjA'ijniin 



ClUHlkf 

ilwert •ii>*o*.fcT«n,fM cvHft| 



Rn/Conni A^arr, fc*lil*d«-in*o*. IBWIl«i». 

■Iid|f ""*" 

tfirrd. CO convoH dignftn, ZM 
ciii»*7I»llllt 



») (l/C Ccmi' I0« 
WS Slllllir 



tfnud «irKliu« huimmnill. fOBtn, 



Srp-VI (00 

l«l} 7(H! 



MO RMCimi 
M RnfCoam 



l«U 
Ap-VI 

19H 

l«SI 
I9W 

Aufl 



I) 



41 
H65 



IS co-ca 

chttd ilidfr 

IW-IUC 

Z2-5 Co-con^st 

4S bVComm 
Ram 

M Conm- w* 

1 1 Rf i/Canun 

V> RtuComm 



100 Cunm - <1W 



1 i>L iMTV<»l ifi riHilinf (nnij. OUih 
compcMi 

Mirv1rciw.cncl cunn|.iafcn 

.tpi ,\td hrcl icief n. amonr. rtiinf 

<i>r^J. Allied wirako*. icmn 

^rtril. HilvtVlURIMlin vnvl. Wftwd 

ujuc pir. pimt ifoiiimel 



Na.i«i4iit<> 


rwil 


Yet 


lis 


-M9- 


rm 1 


y« 


lOJ 


Yel No imta ■ 


1 41 


No iioliud 


l-l'^ 


Sonv itkriikd 


(111 


Yh 


(lis 


. Sinr liicAilliUtr 


IJ I 


J Y« 


101 i 


Yti bioShni 




piDMnM. need 


" ' 


N(A 


IA4 


i: »'* 


1 ) 


fa 


w 


hiuatlv irwiwd 




YM •<! «•»«. 

biinHrf 


«7^ 


N.t ^V^^ AiHll 


.'^ 


Soiw 


: -) 




II IK 



, ■p„",y,„^i ro„r«i*-,™™.-w.-».».«i»««tc..,Mk,^.- p,.,^,A...viMn»«.-.no»-,.iu,,.h.,ir--.->.' ^■' 

I NCoM»t*ll.« SiMiril*. •5<>»d»'»lcCMI1(«™Un, iniftfl'l»i»llSuiM.-»<ot>clr. Nol l«. 

J fi f- nl i tf<- ■ fii.— -faMWMi.C<»».»Mi«.Hiinl-wdifClullnnti.'»i<iC>ilt. Nov mj » 

4 N CoKMtia. I OHiMi. -MSW Conipouin n«nl. Uwn Horn K>r«iwiKT,- iiuCytfc IW, 111: 

J CoMi<n»i«4inCdiil(Kp«tKll»USl>.ii»m«li(»H(m™«"i"'"— '''''"•^''''■"'""**' 

1 A«ll<«..*..-Wrt*«C,TW<i-yi"™'«™*«*°"-^*'^''0.n..5<.bd*««0lfi«.M«h»^^ 

4 Adtfll<»l <k» «• Ne-c-k rMtoyr penoMt .dnin«*c«i«. «a. Johr N„™n -nd fe K... Bo.. R.»aroa. Muth .nd ApnI. Hit 

5 Ad*«omr*UaiiSi«t«IH.(MMmlcaiiin.«cMionwlliJ DeMoll. Ow.il M.ni«tr. S.«t»Hle. Much. 1991 

1 M»|,oc(imlini«.lb«rtai»*K>llw(««nl.JOl[«i*.»»(^«"«JB-.«d.'Vidi,oi»i>l.cn 

2 Tr.mil (Kil»T'>»">«l»™'>»»'"*'^"*" "»"'•* *"'^*""«'^"""'""^ "'**'' °^'°" 

i ^te,Jhri>IT <ltMlll«|.Ml «rt«M<<l»»l« »A«gg.'tlJ!™gg|g^V'*™^-'°-^^ :- 



IB 



oKd Only V ■ M «'d cimfnard: aoptioMBf 

nortvAibbto 

libit 

Cofl^soiuiiii ipfioli 100 Hfft no imktu roi cmifHW yil '•>% 
110I jviilitkir midtito 

HRCirdpidanlrrcanaiKtioa jlrolvt lowci Kfuilcdna 
140.1100 aina; 4(i« midiali 

ronaniuiion ■ piUnii ■ can«dniii( iMHkinii pnwnmi 
KpipnKii |}2.S.Dao Abo Ciuttr lr|« n>ll>rij.t f>Hi. n|Hl 
I16.«» pUMcaodONP 

Ml riiiiVi»< »« bndno [o»n l«;'ikiO'> •"*" "T""' "f"' 
Itl.ni) Moailfiiil 

rcnificM loM ii ponni loil; )m indub tal no multl lo 
nm nuljhb iftytUI*! 

l.^4(l4)no h^tlT Mih >orui]|L 

■n^i»*tr •»■*»"*» lo o<to<d sn* compoei miiteml •• 
WOOD mn BFHil. Jn* u tei»li»i 



iH xillil* aionutj tit* ■ ton^oW: M* rrtiiiub 
iwnmbbk qmufVUMitHhT. im Ritdub.l» RDF 

I )flj»»' Nil »( coin"* "■«' " I"*"' "•"■ 31 . !S* WMitoili 

9, Sis.™*) ol"" pr*len» wd cMllir mroau ciuMifcuilnipn 

Uk Itft' *""' <"" windfiHK 20 - 2S« rodiub (mot lo 

leS VI4 iMd. 120 Wd 10 RDF, 41 H/d ccn«nK4 0<1jiii 
I liijiall pioMtnii caaa>4 eklll(> haa <ria*o> » iKvnvl 

now ally iMO«iil»»bM"»"«'»"»l»^««'«*'*"- -''* 
AS(I.(KI) fflMfettb 
J 11.0li> tjttitit luni«r ind paichiKd » io4o» lunif i U : Vn> i 

?.||^* (wn hMTk- vont-cm re K% levrli 

Oprtim « •: le/itoy in «tm«. Rtcn>T> i.«iim Kp I's i.|iiiu< 
. stt ml fian mh*ii HdUy. Coaiiw ••id lui H«vy(.xi 
iii/cMWrnn C«bii* l»cyckn» tirtu !• mil |biII» 
K.v tHWt i. IS* mtimb 



^ 



is 
I 



I 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



In some cases, with careful monitoring and improved operation, odours may be mitigated. 
As an example, the Columbia County, Wisconsin facility experienced odour complaints 
related to inadequate turning of piles, and the resulting anaerobic conditions. A new 
windrow turner was purchased to correct the problem (Goldstein, 1992). In other cases, 
expensive equipment has been required, which has not always solved the problem (CMA, 
1992). 

Contamination 

MSW processing involves pulling off recyclables (either manually or mechanically) from 
other materials that must be landfiUed, and then, sending the balance to the composting 
process. Contamination of fmished compost is a problem. While plastics, paper and glass 
can often be screened out to a degree, other undesirable or toxic materials (either from 
household hazardous wastes or from other wastes) can stay in finished compost and cause 
quality problems. •■ ' 

Given the potential markets for compost (i.e. garden use etc.) it is critical that a safe and 
reliable product be generated. In tiie US, where guidelines are less stringent than in Canada 
(Hammer, 1992), several plants have still experienced difficulty with high contamination of 
composted material. 

In Newcastle, Delaware, a new 1/4 inch screen is now used for all material that will be sold. 
However, to maintain throughput, only 25% of the material can be screened. The balance is 
used as landfill cover. Facilities in both St. Cloud, MN and Hidalgo, TE have had to redesign 
their process in response to contamination, including PCBs in the case of St. Cloud 
(Goldstein. 1992,1992a). 

Quality of Recyclables 

For a viable recycling strategy, secondary materials must be free of contamination, unbroken 
(in the case of glass), and easy to separate for processing. For this reason, recyclables 
recovered from a mixeid waste stream produce secondary materials of a lower calibre. A US 
study showed that MSW facilities report lower recovery rates of materials than do source 
separation programs (Hammer, 1992). This is particularly true for paper fibres and glass. 

The Columbia County, Wisconsin plant became fully operational in March, 1992. Despite 
recovery of recyclables by haulers who use the facility, a 40% material reject rate has teen 
reported (Goldstein, 1992). 

Cost 

Municipal solid waste processing and composting plants are expensive to site and to operate. 
Operations demand a considerable amount of expensive technology and manpower, to ensure 
proper sorting of materials and management of composting. A US study showed that the 
average American MSW plant operates at a capital cost of $40,(XX)US to $80,(XX)US per ton 
of daily capacity (Apotheker, 1991a). Plants must be designed to accept and manage alt of 
the waste generated in the community, rather than only a portion. This therefore requires, 
and a much larger facility. 

Also, given die on- going operating problems experienced, and a general tendency to add 
capital improvements to solve the problems, costs can be become prohibitively high. 
Hidalgo County, Texas was investing an additional $250,000 in equipment to counter 
problems with plastic contaminants in the finished compost. The site was not fully 
functional, and inarkets for the material were not secured (Goldstein, 1992). 

May 1994 [ Page G - 3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Techrucal Appendix 



Market Development/Standards 

While it can be difficult to market any type of compost, consumer acceptance of finished 
compost pnxluced from a mixed waste stream is lower than acceptance of composted green 
waste, due to real or perceived quality differences (Hammer, 1992). A study completed in 
the Netherlands showed that fanners using mixed waste compost noticed a decline in sales 
(Segall, 1992). They also noticed a high level of residual contamination in fields (e.g. glass 
and plastic) following heavy rains. 

Femdale, WA was operating for approximately 18 months and had yet to market any 
material, as the compost was still undergoing testing, with process control adjustments being 
made (Goldstein, 1992a). The Columbia County, Wisconsin facility was landfiUing its final 
product, pending state approval to undergo another two years testing of land application 
(Goldstein, 1992a). 

Another approach to mixed solid waste processing involves separating combustable waste for 
processing into refuse-derived fuel (RDF) pellets. This approach is not addressed in the GTA 
3Rs Analysis, as incineration of municipal solid waste is not permitted in Ontario. 

Impact of Mixed Solid Waste Processing on Other 3Rs Activities 

A system in which waste is collected in a mixed state for processing probably removes 
incentives to reduce, reuse and recycle. Individuals arc not readily encouraged to take 
responsibility to reduce waste, either through buying recyclable containers, reusing materials 
(where possible) or reducing waste. 

Municipalities are often required to commit to providing a certain amount of garbage to a 
facility or paying .a penalty for the portion not delivered because mixed waste processing 
facilities arc expensive to site and operate. Portland, Oregan was contactually obliged to pay 
for at least 185,000 tons of garbage per year for using the Riedel mixed waste processing 
facility (now closed) (Apotheker, 1991). These "put or pay" contracts can be disincentives 
for communities to encourage waste reduction. 

Siting Facilities 

Both Dade County, Florida (Agripost) and Portland, Oregon (Riedel) facilities were sited in 
locations arousing concern among residents which contributed to their closure. Other 
facilities near residential areas also have experienced complaints. 

Applicability to GTA 

At present the waste diversion potential of this strategy in the GTA context would be limited 
for the following reasons: 

Contradicts Provincial Policy 

• the mixed waste processing approach conflicts with the 3Rs focus of existing 
waste management policy and practice. The end-of-pipe strategy promotes an 
"out-of-sight, out-of-mind" attitude that would discourage 3Rs; 

• Obligations to provide minimum quantities of waste to a mixed waste processing 
facility may be structural disincentives for communities to encourage waste 
reduction, contrary to the present approach in Ontario; 



May 1994 Page G ■ 4 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Erodes the Current Infrastructure 

• the mixed waste processing approach would require dismantling of the current 
recycling infrastructure, which has been developed over several years and is at the 
point of operating effectively. This is considered a costly step backwards; 

Quality of Materials Diverted 

• Recyclables recovered from mixed waste programs require more effort and cost to 
process to a state suitable for marketing. The quality of recyclables divened 
through source separation programs will always be higher than those which are 
mixed with other wastes, particularly wet organics. 

• Finished compost is often contaminated with materials such as glass, plastic and 
household hazardous waste. This contamination is difficult and expensive to 
manage in a mixed waste processing and composting system. Compost quality is 
better controlled in a waste management system that includes source separation; 

Case Studies 

Examples of Successful Mixed Waste Composting Programs 

A successful Mixed Waste Composting Program is defined, for the purpose of this study, as a 
program that has been operating at least one year, has had no unmanageable problems and is 
producing a compost that can be marketed (tiirough free distribution or sales). 

A telephone and literature survey showed that very few plants currently in operation should 
be termed an unqualified success. Most plants appear to be in a "grey area" where they have 
not yet demonstrated success and are experiencing on-going problems. Examples of current 
operations that are attempting to overcome difficulties are discussed below. 

Wright County, Minnesota 

(Goldstein, 1992a, Davis, Wright County, 1993) 

The Wright County, MN mixed solid waste plant is relatively new, having started up in 
February, 1992. Capacity is 120 tons/day, averaging 90 tons/day in winter. In order to 
maintain a high organic supply, a trading arrangement has been struck where the 
neighbouring Anoka County provides required organic materials in exchange for receiving 
Wright County's plastic and paper materials for their RDF plant. Of incoming materials, 
68% is estimated to be from residential sources, with the additional 32% from IC&I sources. 

Finished compost is marketed to the State Highway Department and various golf courses and 
cemeteries. It is marketed as "Class A" unrestricted material, although some concerns with 
PCB content have been noted. This program utilizes an extensive sorting procedure (a 
combination of manual and mechanical techniques) which separates the aluminum, glass, 
newspaper and some plastic, OCC and magazines from the compostable materials. 
Approximately 8% of feed is recovered for recycling (steel, aluminum, OCC and PET), 36% 
is rejected, much of which is sent for incinerationj and 58% is composted. Approximately 
2% of finished compost is rejected. 

New Castle, Delaware 

(Goldstein, 1992, Neyman and Roe, Raytheon, 1993) 

A public/private, in-vessel composting plant with a design capacity of 1,000 tons/day has 
been operated by Raytheon i n Newcastle, Delaware since 1984. It was recently shut down 
May 1994 Page G - 5 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



for letroflts. The plant was co-composting between 200 and 225 tons/day processed ntiixed 
solid waste with 100 to 150 wet tonVday of sewage sludge. The majority of incoming waste 
(up to an estimated 90%) is reportedly from residential sources. 

Mixed solid waste feed is extensively sorted with a mechanical separator. Organics arc 
processed in Fairfield digesters, and then cured in a large curing area. 25% of the 
approximately 250 tons/day output are screened (in a 1/4 inch screen) and distributed as 
compost. 75% of material is not screened (due to lack of screen capacity) and is utiUzed as 
landfill cover. 

600 tons of the daily feed is sent to Pennsylvania for incineration, while 30 tons per day of 
steel are sold for reprocessing. It is anticipate that 3 to 4 tons of aluminum will also be 
recovered. 

Compost has been marketable, selling at a cost of $4.50 per cubic yard (bulk) or $1 per 20 lb 
bag. Approximately 50% of the marketed material has been distributed as topsoil, and 
another 50% has been pelletized for fertilizer. The program has utilized advertising, public 
education, plant tours and other venues to distribute and create dem^d for the material. The 
Department of Transpon was considering utilizing a significant amount of the compost in 
land reclamation and building projects. 

The plant has experienced odour problems, contamination and other product specification 
problems (such as excessively dry compost). The potential for improved screening to reduce 
contamination was limited because this contributes to odour problems. It could only be done 
when the wind blew in a certain direction. Adding moisture to the piles also generated 
further odour problems. Odour complaints related to the digesters are being addressed (with 
consideration given to a new stack, fan, and neutralizing agents). 

Pembroke Pines, Florida 
(Goldstein, 1992 and 1993) 

Pembroke Pines, a public/private venture, has been operational since October 1991. It is the 
largest MSW composting facility in the US, owned by Reuter Recycling. It currently 
processes 550 tons/day, or at about 80% of its design capacity of 660 tons/day. 

A preprocessing stream separates 10% of material for recycling, another 20% for landfill, and 
the remaining 70% for composting. Ultimately, approximately one third of the incoming 
material becomes finished compost, which is currently distributed as Class B compost, and 
used in soil blends, on sod farms, and as top dressing. According to plant sources, virtually 
all compost is marketed. 

The plant has experienced problems including: 

• slow decomposition due to high temperatures caused by anaerobic conditions 

• high equipment maintenance demands (parts of the hammermill are subject to 
wearing out) 

• too littie air in the piles between November and summer. This is due to a 
structural/engineering problem that has set the aeration below the groundwater. 
During these months, composting is halted; 

• A major reconstruction project is being planned to fix the biofilter process. 

With a secondary curing pad and reconstruction, plant representatives believe a Class A 
compost rating could be achieved (as the product cures longer and achieves greater stability). 

May 1994 \ ~ ] Page G - 6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Sevierville, Tennessee 
(Goldstein, 1992a, DcMoU, 1993) 

The Sevierville, Tennessee facility began operation in September, 1992 and appears to have 
built on lessons from preceding experiences in MSW composting (Goldstein, 1993). It is 
discussed here briefly because of its early successes. 

The plant is built to a design capacity of 160 tons/day, of which 75% is collected fixtm the 
ICSd sector, and 25% is residendal. OCC is source separated and does not enter this stream. 
Organic materials are co-composted with 25 tons/day sewage sludge. Large items are 
manually separated at the front end (bicycles, tires, etc.) and all other materials are sent to the 
digester. Ferrous is separated with a magnet, and an aluminum separator was to be installed. 

Prior to composting, 35% of incoming material is landfiUed, 3 to 4% of the incoming stream 
which is ferrous material is recovered and an additional 2% is aluminum and was expected to 
be separated as well. The remainder is co-composted. Currently, 10% of the fmished 
material is required for landfill cover. Most of the remainder, which is a Class A 
(Agricultural Grade) compost is given away to residents or sold in bulk to landscapers 6t soil 
mixers (DeMoll, 1993). 

Examples of Failed Mixed Waste Composting Programs 

Portland, Oregon 

(Reid, 1993. McConaghy, 1993, Apotheker, 1991) 

The Portland (Riedel) mixed solid waste composting plant was designed to accept 
approximately 600 tons of mixed municipal solid waste per day, and to convert 60% of that 
to compost. The facility, which opened in 1991, was the first large-scale mixed solid waste 
compost plant in the US. It was closed at the end of 1992 because the company was unable 
to provide the financial resources required to obtain the technology to mitigate odour 
problems. 

The odour problems began at the outset, when the company accelerated the start-up process. 
Large quantities of material were accepted at the plant, before adequate time had been spent 
on slowly getting the composting process up to speed which is essendal at thd beginning of a 
complex biological and technological process. From that point, odour concerns were never 
properly controlled. 

Also, the operation experienced difficulty meeting its contract commitment of recovering 5% 
of material for recycUng, including successful marketing of the materials (Apotheker, 1991). 

It should be noted that other technical problems had been experienced that are attributed to 
applying the wrong technology to this particular waste stream. For instance, plastic materials 
processed in the drums became mangled and twisted into plastic "snakes," which caused 
mechanical problems and additional wear on the machinery. 

Dade County, Florida 
(Libbey, 1991) 

Siting for the Agripost, Dade County, FLA mixed waste composting plant was approved in 
1988. In May, 1991, the facility was closed. The former (Thief Operating Officer of the 
plant attributes its demise to a combination of political, financial and technical issues. 



May 1994 



Page G - 7 



Ministry cf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical AfyxncUx 



The facility was built on a small capital budget based on projected financial statements. This 
budget pivoted on a low county tipping fee and was barely adequate to sustain the facility. 
There was insufficient capital to permit f£u;ility officials to address technical problems and 
project financing did not accommodate the uncertain des inherent in a pioneer project. This 
demanded almost immediate full capacity functioning of die plant (at a large design capacity 
of 800 tons/day). 

Accelerated start-up and weather conditions exacerbated odour problems. These are likely to 
have been compounded by new cell development at the landfill next door. Situated across 
the street from an elementary school and surrounded by a residential community, the 
operation had litde flexibility. Agripost officials failed to win public opinion. 

While Agripost did market finished material, the actual output of compost was slow. 
Partially finished compost was stockpiled, awaiting finishing in the trommel screen. 
Expensive retrofit equipment was needed to address technical problems (tronunel screening 
equipment, new design for comprehensive duct work system to process air from the building, 
biological filtration and chemical scrubbing) but financing to complete the retrofits was 
difficuh to obtain. 

Attempts were made to obtain retrofit financing from lending institutions (contingent upon a 
favourable political decision regarding the county tipping fee) at the same time as the faciUty 
was brought before County Commission Hearings about health and safety. A decision was 
made to close the plant. 

References 

Apotheker, S. 1991. "Mixed Waste Processing Head to Head with Curbside Recycling 
CoWccnon." Resource Recycling. Sept., 199\ 

Apotheker, S. 1991a, "Engineering the Nation's Largest MSW Composting Plant." Resource 
Recycling. July, 1991 

Compost Management Associates (CMA), 1992. "Windrow or In-vessel: Costly High-tech 
Option Not Always Best Choice." Ontario Recycling Update. Oct.-Nov., 1992 

Gitlin, B. 1992. "Dirty MRFsi Do Mixed Waste Processing Facilities Deserve Their 
Nickname or Are They Getting A Bum Rap?" Recycling Today" May, 1992 

Goldstein, N., J. Glenn, 1992, "Solid Waste Composting Plants Face the Challenges." 
BioCycle. December, 1992. 

Goldstein, N., J. Glenn, 1992a, "MSW Composting Plants Learn From Experience." 
BioCycle. December, 1992. 

t 

Hammer, S. l991.Garbage In/Garbage Out: A Hard Look At Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 
Composting . N.Y. Environmental Institute. Oct., 1991 

Hammer, S. 1992. "Garbage In/Garbage Out: A Hard Look At Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 
Composting. " Resource Recycling . 1 992 

Libbey K. 1991. "Lessons from a Closed MSW Composting Plant" Biocycle, December, 
1991, 

Misner, M. 1990. "Marketing RDF: Rtuter's Nightmare in Minnesota" Recycling Times, 
April 24, 1990 

Segall, L. 1992. Trends in European MSW Composting, Resource Recycling , January, 1992 
May 1994 ~~ Page G - 8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Personal Communications 



Davis, C, 1993. Personal communication with C. Davis, Wright County Solid Waste Office, ' 
Maich and May, 1993 

De Moll, J., 1993, Personal communication with John DeMoll, General Manager, Sevierville, 
March, 1993. 

Goldstein, N. 1993. Personal communication with N. Goldstein, BioCycle, March, 1993. 

McConaghy, R. 1993. Personal communication with R. McConaghy, Harding, Lawson Associates, 
PorUand. March, 1993 • 

Neyman, J. and R. Roc, 1993. Personal communication with J. Neyman and R. Roe, Ratheon, March 
and April, 1993. 

Reid, J. 1993. Personal communication with Jeep Reid, former Project Engineer with . 
Portland Riedel MSW plant. March and April, 1993 



May 1994 PageG-9 



SCHEDULE H 

MARKETS 

H-1 Overview of Markets 

H-2 Markets for Fibres 

H-3 Markets for Plastics 

H-4 Markets for Organics 

H-5 Markets for Metals 

H-6 Markets for Construction and Demolition 

Waste 
H-7 Markets for Other Materials 
H-8 Market Development 
H-9 References 



Ministry of EnvironmerU and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H 1.0 OVERVIEW OF MARKETS 

Hl.l Introduction 

Each of the alternative systems described in the EA Input £>ocument and related Appendices are 
founded on the assumption that markets for the materials diverted for recycling will be 
developed over time, in order that demand (for increasing amounts of recyclables that will be 
generated) keep pace with supply. Markets are not uniformly strong for all materials at this 
time. Markets for recyclable materials have developed unevenly, to a point where they are 
strong for some materials and quite weak for others. 

Technological, economic and material quality issues related to Collection and processing of 
recyclable materials influence their value and utility to end markets. For example, with plastics 
recycling, material identification and contamination has long been an impediment to more 
effective recycling. It has been expensive and difficult to sort materials to the specifications 
required to provide high quality feedstocks for remanufacturing. However, like many technical 
issues, this one is presently under study and various groups and organizations are dedicating 
resources to its solution, with increasing success. 

This schedule presents a situational analysis, material by material, that realistically examines the 
current status of markets for materials that might be generated and recovered in the GTA. It 
discusses issues that have inhibited growth of markets or encouraged further demand. Based 
on information that is currendy available, it presents a discussion of future trends that are likely 
to impact on material markets over the life of the study. 

In recognition that existing barriers to finding and developing maricets for recycled materials 
must be also be overcome. Section 8.0 of this schedule focuses on policies which may promote 
market development Some of these include procurement policies that favour recycled content, 
policies that mandate minimum recycled content requirements, provide for tradable recycling 
credits and/or remove subsidies on virgin materials. A combination of any of these and more 
market development initiatives can help create an environment where demand for recycled 
materials would increase, thus supporting waste diversion. Market development policies, how 
they work, current examples and their potential impacts are also discussed in the final section 
of Uiis schedule. 



May 1994 ■., 



Page Hl-1 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H2.0 MARKETS FOR FIBRES 



H2.1 Introduction 



The secondary fibre market in North America has been experiencing a glut of paper fibres 
created by several recent concurrent events, some of which include: 

• the rapid implementation of curbside and office paper recovery programs; 

• landfill bans prohibiting the disposal of OCC and/or fine paper; 

• the recent inuroduction of mandatory source separation programs in several North 
American jurisdictions. 

North American mills that produce newsprint, printing and writing paper, have responded to 
these forces by installing de-inking capacity to utilize secondary fibres. The Ontario market has 
proven fairly stable since Ontario-based mills generate ample demand for all secondary fibres 
collected through Ontario recycling programs. Over the long-term, the current glut of 
secondary fibre in the North American market is anticipated to fall short of market demand. 

A new pressure for Ontario mills is the competition for sources of inexpensive secondary 
fibres. In the past, for example, manufacturing a material like boxboard used about 45% of 
recovered ONP. However, now other manufacturers are competing for ONP, in order to feed 
new ONP and OMG de-inking mills (Slack, Sonoco). Consequently, other cheaper fibres are 
being substituted in the place of ONP for boxboard. This trend has led to an unstable situation 
for some recycling companies and brokers, resulting in price fluctuations for substitute 
feedstock material, such as OCC, mixed paper, and ONP which are often interchangeable. 

Fibre export is another important factor that affects Ontario markets. Over the years, exports of 
secondary fibre from North America have played a major role in the fibre market. Countries 
such as Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico which are fibre-short, value the North American recovered 
papers because they contain predominandy high quality primary fibres. As the North American 
paper mills continue to expand secondary fibre production, paper brokers arc pressured to 
maintain a secure and growing supply of secondary fibres for North American markets, at the 
expense of the export market. 

The marketplace for fibres is therefore dynamic. Prices for most paper grades are expected to 
increase over time with an increase in demand resulting from new mills and greater de-inking 
capacity. Changes in prices, supply and demand will continue to affect the overall market and 
the individual markets for specific types of secondary fibres. As new capacity to use recovered 
fibre increases, and as programs increase their recovery of these materials, markets will 
continue to change. 

H2.2 Markets for Old Newspapers (ONP) 

Canada is a world leading exporter of newsprint. International consumption and demand 
related to newsprint impact greatly on the industry. An average of 87% of Canadian newsprint 
was exported in 1991, 64% of which was shipped to the United States. Domestic 
consumption of ONP by Canadian newsprint mills accounted for only 14% of the total 
production (CPP A, 1991). 

The recent demand for recycled content in newsprint in the United States has changed Ontario 
newsprint mills from small consumers of ONP (prior to 1991), to major importers in 1992. 
This trend will continue in the future as Ontario mills will need to look far beyond the Ontario 
market for sources of ONP. 



May 1994 



Page mi 



Ministry of Environmera and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appenda 



Over the past decade ONP has become one of the most highly recycled post-consumer fibres in 
Canada with an estimated 40% of the available ONP collected in 1991 through a variety of 
recycling programs operating in Canada (CDNA, 1992). More than 50% of available supply 
was recovered in Ontario. Over the next few years, with new recycling programs targeted at, 
the residential sector and the IC&I sector it is anticipated diat the majority of available ONP will 
be captured in Canada. 

Definition 

Old newspapers are generated by the residential sector and the printing/publishing sector in the 
form of over issues. Grades of ONP vary according to the level of contamination and are 
defined by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries as #6 - News (typically collected in the 
residential curbside/depot collection programs); #7 - Special News; #8 - Special News De-Ink 
Quality (cannot contain any prohibited materials such as magazines, glossy inserts, staples, 
etc.) (ISRI, 1991). 

Historical ONP Marlcet Overview 

ONP has long been collected from publishers' pressrooms (referred to as over issue news) and 
from newsstands (in the form of unsold copies). Typical end uses for ONP by mills included: 

• contairierboard; 

• boxboard; * 

• molded pulp. ' . , ' 

The use of ONP in the production of newsprint was not previously encouraged since only 
Grade #8 - ONP (containing very low levels of contaminants) could be used by mills. In early 
recycling, newsprint mills could accommodate only minute levels of contamination (i.e., 
magazines, glossy inserts, staples, flyers). Other paper production processes, such as 
boxboard, molded pulp products, and construction board could handle lower grades of 
newsprint with a higher level of contaminants. 

Between 1982 and 1991, only one de-inking mill, owned and operated by QUNO (formally 
Quebec and Ontario Paper Co.) operated in Ontario, Three major factors have helped change 
this, including: 

• the recent introduction of U.S. legislation requiring increased recycled content in 
newspapers which has had a profound effect on the demand for ONP by newsprint 
mills located in Canada and, to a lesser extent, the United States 

• increased curbside programs collecting ONP; 

• the City of Toronto requirement establishing minimum recycled content targets: 

— 15% recycled content of newspapers sold in vending machines by June 1, 
1993; 

— 20% by June 1,1994; 

— 30% by June 1,1995; 

— 40% by June 1, 2000 {Ontario Recycling Update, March. 1992). 

In response to these developments, the Canadian newsprint industry has invested an estimated 
$1.2 billion to develop de-inking technology (CDNA, 1992). 

Current ONP Marltet Overview 

The rapid progress in bringing Canadian de-inking mills on-line has resulted in increased 
demand for ONP as a feedstock in the production of newsprint Additional end uses for ONP 
include paperboard (i.e. boxboard linerboard), construction board and material, molded pulp 
products (i.e. egg cartons, and plant bedding pots) and tissue products. Current use of ONP in 
secondary applications is estimated as follows: 

May 1994 ' Page H2-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Newsprint 

Boxboard 

Construction Board and Materials 

Molded Pulp Products 

Tissue Products, Animal Bedding 

and Fine Papers 



44% 
43% 

7% 

7% 

>1%(GVRD, 1993). 



The demand for ONP by Canadian newsprint mills has significantly increased since 1991 
(when demand was 0.5 million tonnes). In 1992, demand for 0>fP increased to 1.2 million 
tonnes, and in 1993, demand was expected to increase to 1.3 million tonnes. Canadian 
residential curbside recycling programs recovered approximately 583,200 tonnes of ONP in 
1992, falling short of demand by Canadian mills by more than half. With new recycling 
programs targeting both the residential and IC&I sectors over the next few years, an overall 
recovery rate of about 60% is considered feasible by the Canadian Daily Newspaper 
Association (CDNA) (CDNA, June 1992). 

Since 1991, five newsprint mills have developed operations that use ONP. These are 
presented in Table H2. 1 . . 

According to the Newspaper Publishers of Ontario demand by Ontario newspaper mills 
reached 500,000 tonnes in 1993, exceeding supply by about 100,000 tonnes. The shortfall 
was made up by imports from the U.S. (Recycling Canada, December, 1993). 

Table H2.1 
Ontario Newsprint Mills with Recycled ONP Capacity 



Company 


1<W3 Tstiitiated 

Annual 

Newsprint 

Capacity 

(OOO's tonnes) 


' Riaicyclcd 
Content 


Estimated 

Demand tot. 

Recyclable 

Paper 

(000*s tonnes) 


QUNO 
(Thorold) 


340 


70% 


275 


Atlantic Packaging 
(Whitby) 


135 


100% 


160 


Spruce Falls 
(Kapuskasing) 


245 


10% 


30 


Abitibi Price 
(Iroquois Falls) 


_^ 


15-20% 


43 


Abiubi Price 
(Fort William) 




15-20% 


18 


CPFP* 
(Thunder Bay) 


450 


20% 


120 






Total Demand 


646 


*CP^P-Canadian Pacific Forest Products ' 

Sources: CPPA, 1993 

Note: CPFP in Gatineau. Quebec is also a significant user of Ontario ONP. 



May J 994 



Page H2-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



ONP Prices 

ONP prices remained stable at $40 lo $50/tonne during the mid 1980s. From 1988 to 1990, 
prices dropped to $0 to $30/tonne (OPPUG, 1992). By 1990, the QUNO paper strike had 
forced recycling programs to find alternate markets. The majority of these markets were found 
overseas, and during this time many brokers received nominaJ revenue for the material. 

Prices have increased recently as a result of heightened demand from the new de-inking plants. 
The 1992, Ontario market price for ONP ranged from $10 to $35 per tonne. Some forecasts 
suggest an increase in the ONP price to a level of $50 to $60 per tonne in the foreseeable 
future. , 

Diversion Trends 

Ontario newspaper publishers have made efforts to reduce consumption of newsprint through 
light weighting, and other activities. Since 1989,. total newsprint consumption in Ontario has 
declined by 31%, as a result of smaller newspaper sizes, a shift to lighter weight newsprint, 
reduced advertising and reduced readership (OPPUG. 1992). An estimated 10% reduction in 
consumption by the Toronto dailies occurred between 1990 to 1991. In addition, the move by 
the Toronto Star to a new press plant and a smaller newspaper format is expected to 
significantly reduce newsprint used by the Star, the largest daily newspaper in the GTA. 
Toronto papers are also beginning to purchase newsprint with recycled content, partly resulting 
from a City of Toronto bylaw requiring recycled content in newspapers sold in vending 
machines. 

Market Development and Future Market Trends For ONP 

The newsprint industry is anticipated to remain the major market for ONP in the future. Only 
modest increases in the use of ONP for other paper and non-paper applications arc predicted. 
The Newspaper Publishers of Ontario report that a series of advertisements is being run in their 
papers to explain the environmental and economic value of recycling to readers {Recycling 
Canada, December, 1993). 

Domestic markets have sufficient capacity to absorb all available ONP collected in Ontario, In 
fact, Ontario mills are expected to face a shortage of ONP supply as the demand for recycled 
content in newsprint continues to drive the newspaper industry in the United States (Johnson, 
QUNO). 

While the Canadian industry as a whole is expected to reach only a 20% average level of 
recycled content by the end of 1994 (CDNA), it should be noted that the 'QUNO plant in 
Thorold, Ontario has successfully produced newsprint with 62% recycled content (GVRD, 
1993). 

Alternative end markets for ONP include construction board and material, molded pulp 
products, tissue products, cat litter and industrial absorbents, packaging and use of shredded 
ONP as animal bedding. 

Market Outlook for GTA Generated ONP 

It is anticipated that markets for ONP recovered in GTA will be stable for the foreseeable 
future, and capable of utilizing all ONP collected in the region. 

H2.3 Markets for Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 

Introduction 

Clean, non wet-strength, old corrugated cardboard is reported to have one of the highest 
product recovery rates (primarily through the IC&I sector) (Apotheker, March 1993). Pan of 
the reason for the high recovery rate of OCC is it's concentration in large amounts from readily 
accessible sources. A recent U.S. study by Andover International Associates (AIA, 1993) 

May 1994 Page H2^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



indicated that 50% of OCC is found in retail and commercial establishments (with an additional 
28% in the manufacturing sector, 13% residential, and 8% pre-consumer off cuts). Further 
research indicates that 70% of OCC captured from the retail/commercial sector comes from 
large generators. For example, one case study showed that five large retailers in the U.S. alone 
recover nearly 1 million tons (0.9 million tonnes) of OCC annually (WatsOn, March 1993). 

Dcrinition 

The OCC grade of waste paper primarily consists of used corrugated boxes. According to the 
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, OCC Grade #11 may consist of baled corrugated 
containers having liners of either test liner, jute or kraft. Prohibited materials may not exceed 
1% and total outthrows may not exceed 5%. Pre-consurtier double-lined kraft corrugated 
cuttings (DLK) is a separate grade of OCC (Grade #13) but this grade is often included in OCC 
recovery estimates (averaging up to 8% of total containerboard production in the United States) 
(ISRI, 1991). , : 

Historical OCC Marliet Overview 

OCC generated by the IC&I sector has been recycled by established markets for many years. 
Large grocery distributors, such as A&P and Loblaws, have been collecting and baling OCC 
for die past 20 years. 

OCC is high quality fibre and traditionally has been recycled into boxboard and containerboard, 
including linerboard (the outer face of new corrugated boxes), corrugated medium (center 
fluting of a corrugated box), chipboard (the filler materials for solid fibre board) and, to a 
lesser extent, paperboard. These consume over 90% of OCC. Despite the recent interest. by 
the fibre market in increasing the amount of secondary fibres in the fibre feedstock at the mills, 
tHe containerboard and boxboard industry has used post- and pre-consumer materials for the 
past couple of decades. Relatively clean OCC (without wax or coaungs) can be directly 
introduced in the pulping process for containerboard and boxboard production, wiUi no prior 
processing or de-inking. 

The majority of containerboard mills have been situated in the eastern region of Canada, 
particularly Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick. This trend is expected to continue. 
Consumption of OCC by Canadian mills has increased over the years from 327,0(X) tonnes in 
1975 to 948,000 tonnes in 1991 (CPPA, 1991). In 1988, approxiniately 70% of OCC 
consumption in Canada was used in the production of containerboard; the remaining 30% of 
OCC was used in the production of boxboard (MOE, 1993). 

Current OCC Market Overview 

OCC remains one of the easiest materials to recover since it is obtainable in a clean, dry form 
from the IC&I sector. The Paper and Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC) 
estimates that the IC&I sector generates 80% of the available corrugated container material 
(PPEC, 1992). Municipalities have begun to capitalize on the high visibility of OCC in the 
IC&I waste su-eam by enacting OCC bans at local landfills. This initiative has helped to achieve 
high recovery rates for OCC in excess of 50% for many jurisdictions. According to NAPP 
(1992), the recycling rate achieved for OCC by the Ontario IC&I sector exceeded 60%. 
Increased volumes of available OCC are also likely to be seen due to the new Ontario 3Rs 
Regulations. A total of 9 sectors will be required to source separate (XC for recycling under 
these regulations (MOEE, October. 1993). 

Table H2.2 identifies the prevalent containerboard mills in Ontario and their consumption of 
OCC in 1992. The Sonoco and Domtar owned mills produce 100% recycled content 
containerboard products. 



May 1994 PageH2-5 



Ministry oj Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table H2.2 
Ontario Mills Producing Recycled Content Containerboard 



Loc:>tion 






Tfinr 



Sonoco 

Sonoco 

Atlantic Packaging 

Domtar 

Domtar 

MacMillan Bloedel 



Branlford 

Trenton 

Scarborough 

Mississauga 

Trenton 

Sturgeon Falls 



30,000 
48,000 
96,000 
68,000 
68,000 
104,000 



(References: Maryanne Christie, Sonoco, Jeff Remouche, Domtar and Bob Nelson, 
Atlantic Packaging, February to March, 1993). 



Two new major expansions of capacity will add to the Ontario market for OCC. These are: 

• Domtar in Cornwall (Ontario) with a projected annual capacity of 120,000 tonnes; 
and 

• Domtar in Windsor (Quebec) with a projected annual capacity of 240,0(K) tonnes. 

Other end uses of OCC include the manufacturing of kraft paper; tubes and core board used by 
manufacturers of tissue, toweling, giftwrap, textiles, etc.; gypsum wallboard liner and roofing 
felt used in home renovation and building; packaging materials used for the shipping and sale 
of breakable objects such as fluorescent light bulbs, china, etc. and heavy objects; and 
flowerpots and biodegradable gardening supplies used by greenhouses and garden supply 
outlets. 

OCC Market Prices 

In the mid to late 1980s the price for OCC paid by Ontario mills ranged between $60 to $80 per 
tonne. Since then the prices have plummeted to lows of $15 tonne and averaged $25 to $35 per 
tonne in 1993 (Remouche, Domtar). 

The industry projects a modest increase in the price of OCC in the mid 1990s with a 
corresponding increase in demand (Apotheker, April 1992, March 1993). However, some 
volatility in prices is expected over the short period due to the low prices for other substitute 
fibres, such as ONP and mixed paper. The export market for OCC is expected to remain 
depressed due to the oversupply situation in Europe. These factors may create short-term 
fluctuations in the price until the market begins to stabilize (Resource Recycling, April 1993). 

Diversion Trends 

Several source reduction initiatives are underway in the IC&I sector to reduce OCC 
consumption. For example, the Railways Association of Canada approved package weight 
reductions of 5% to 10% for shipping purposes. This is projected to result in reductions of up 
to 100,000 tonnes annually in the amount of OCC used for transportation purposes in Canada 
{Recycling Canada, August 1992). 

Cardboard container reuse systems are also being implemented by large and small companies. 
For example, Xerox Corporation has implemented a cardboard box reuse system and requires 
that its suppliers use any one of eight standard sized boxes to ship components. When 
shipments are received, a local distributor sorts and resells the boxes to Xerox suppliers. 



May 1994 



Page H2-6 



Ministry of Environmeru and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Market Development and Future Market Trends For OCC 

As an international commodity, OCC is strongly affected by national and international trends 
and developments, such as new market development, mandatory source separation programs, 
landfill bans, and recycled content legislation. 

OCC currently has an established market in Ontario which is capable of absorbing more 
domestic OCC than is collected. At this time, 20% of OCC used in Ontario mills is imported 
(MOEE, October, 1993) and Ontario OCC competes with imported supply which has an 
established customer base. Depending on transportation costs and prices, some southeast mills 
(Florida, Kentucky, Georgia) may begin to capture some of the U.S. OCC now being shipped 
into Canada, thus increasing Canadian mill demand for local OCC. 

New markets are also developing for OCC. Domtar has developed a revolutionary process to 
manufacture fine paper (a high value-added product) from OCC. This new technology should 
be in place by April, 1994 (Remouche, Domtar, March 1994) in Domtar's Cornwall plant, with 
a second plant in Windsor, Quebec coming on line by 1996. Rather than de-inking recycled 
pulp, OCC will be used directly in die production of fine paper. (McKanna^ February 1993). 

Waxed, coaled, wet or organically stained OCC has not traditionally been recycled by most 
mills, it is generated in large volumes from a small set of users in the fruit, vegetable and meat 
processing businesses. Recently, several projects have been initiated to deal with waxed 
corrugated cardboard. One commercial compost site in Ontario has received a Certificate of 
Approval to compost waxed corrugate. Results of waxed OCC composting trials sponsored by 
PPEC have proven successful. In addition, efforts are underway to develop technology to 
remove the wax coating from the OCC for use in the production of new containerboard. 
Research is also underway in Scandinavia to develop a viable repulping process for waxed 
boxes (Apotheker, March 1993). 

Market Outlook For GTA Collected OCC 

The recovery rates for OCC across Nonh America have increased, due to increasing disposal 
fees, and landfill material bans (Apotheker. March, 1992). Since OCC collection has become 
well-established in much of the IC&l sector, the opportunities to increase recovery lie in 
improving capture rates in the residential sector and penetration of the large number of smaller 
IC&I generators who do not currently recycle. 

With significant increases in demand for OCC from mills in Ontario and Quebec, there is 
adeqiiate market capacity to absorb OCC collected within the GTA. Composting of waxed 
corrugated has proven successful at the research level and it is expected that this may provide a 
further outlet for some of the waxed OCC generated. 

H2.4 Markets for Box board 

Introduction 

In 1991, Canadian mills produced 826,000 tonnes of boxboard (OBB) for Canadian and 
international consumption (data provided by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association.) Based 
on shipment data, the Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC) estimates that 
256,0()0 tonnes of boxboard were consumed in Ontario in 1992; the majority, (about 175,(X)0 
tonnes) in the residential sector. 

Definition 

Boxboard is a general term describing a range of paperboard products including folding 
cartons, setup boxes, and foodboard. 



May 1994 Page H2-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Historical Boxboard Market Overview 

Traditionally, boxboard has been made with recycled fibre including: 

• ONP; 

• OCC; 

• mixed paper. 

Post-consumer boxboard itself has not typically been used as a source of fibre due to the high 
level of contamination by glues, plastics, and liners. Only recently has it been introduced as 
feedstock material. Virgin pulp is often added to the mixture to provide additional strength and 
integrity to the product. » • . f 

The actual composition of boxboard varies considerably, depending on the price for the 
secondary feedstock and the availability. Consequently, there is no common "recipe" for 
boxboard production. According to Franklin and Associates (1991), a common composition 
for boxboard (in 1990) consisted of the following materials: 



corrugated cardboard 


45%; 


mixed papers 


22%; 


newspapers 


20%; 


pulp substitutes 


10%; 


de-inking 


2%. 



Current Markets Tor Post-Consumer Boxboard ' ' 

Mills have traditionally required post-consumer materials to be of high quality. The 
introduction of front-end cleaning equipment has permitted existing boxboard mills to remove 
glues, coatings and other contaminants found in bales of post-consumer boxboard. PPEC is 
cumendy also working with package designers and adhesive manufacturers to reduce the use of 
materials which become contaminants in the recycling process. This has effectively reduced a 
major barrier to material utilization and market development 

Two Ontario boxboard mills (Cascades Paperboard International in Toronto and Strathcona in 
Napanee) currently accept post-consumer boxboard, which must be clean and baled. Mills 
currentiy accepting post-consumer boxboard encourage municipal programs to limit collection 
to cereal and cracker boxes and pharmaceutical packages. At Strathcona Paper, post-consumer 
boxboard collected through Blue Box programs is used to manufacture detergent cartons. 
These cartons currently contain up to 28% post-consumer boxboard with the remaining 72% 
consisting of other recycled fibre material (Recycling Canada, July 1991). 

According to PPEC, as of January 1994, recycled OBB demand by brandowners was 8,160 
tonnes, while only 3,132 tonnes were available through Ontario municipal programs. This 
resulted in a shortfall of 5,028 tonnes which was required for recycling into boxboard 
(MuUinder, 1994). 

An important source of higher quality post-consumer boxboard is the IC&I sector. IC&I- 
recovered boxboard also supplies the Strathcona Mill with secondary boxboard feedstock 
material. In 1992, the Strathcona facility substituted post-consumer boxboard (collected from 
tiie residential and IC&l sectors) for ONP at a rate of 21,000 tonnes. Of tiiis, half (12,000 
tonnes) was supplied by the Ontario IC&l market with the remaining imported from Quebec 
and the United States (Hunter, Su-athcona). 

Table H2.3 presents a summary of boxboard mills in the U.S., Ontario, Quebec and New 
Brunswick. . , 



May 1994 Page H2-8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table H2.3 
Boxboard Mills in Eastern Canada 



TEini 



Sonoco (formerly Paperboard Industries) 

Sonoco 

Eraser 

Cascades 

Daishowa Forest Products Ltd. 

Strathcona Paper 

Cascades Paperboard Internationa] 



Location ^ 

Trenton, Ontario 
Brantford, Ontario 
Edmonton, ^fB 
East Angus, Quebec 
Quebec City, Quebec 
Napanee, Ontario 
Toronto, Ontario 



Market Prices 

In 1992, market prices for post-consumer boxboard averaged $10 per tonne. More recenUy, 
the price has increased to $20 per tonne for boxboard collected through residential programs 
and $40 per tonne for boxboard collected from the IC&I sector (Hunter, Strathcona). The 
increase in price is attributed to improved quality of material and increased supply received by 
the mills. 

Market Development and Future Market Trends for Boxboard 

While several initiatives have been undertaken to identify new processes for recychng 
boxboard and new uses for recovered material, boxboard is not yet the focus of government 
market development initiatives. PPEC and OMMRl, along with brand owners, packagers and 
stakeholders have established a boxboard task group to identify new ways to capture 
boxboard, to use it in new packages and to find new markets for its use. (MOEE, October 
1993). 

The predominant current use of boxboard is for food packaging. Post-consumer boxboard can 
be recycled into new board sheet which is converted into boxes for cereals, frozen foods, 
crackers, etc. This application is limited due to requirements that food contact packaging not 
contain post consumer recycled content. Two solutions to this dilemma are being pursued. 
First, PPEC has been in negotiation with health officials to review the requirements for food 
packaging to contain only virgin materials. PPEC has asked federal health officials to comment 
on the viability of increasing post-consumer materials in packaging. Also, a U.S. company 
(Westvaco Corp.) has developed a bleached board containing post-consumer fibres suitable for 
food-contact packaging that meets with U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards (TAPPl 
Journal, March 1993). . 

Other potential markets include: 

• ethanol production from boxboard is an alternative which has proven feasible at the 
research level. CanAgra is considering construction of a boxboard to ethanol plant 
to be located in the Bruce Peninsula. It would require 170,000 tonnes of boxboard 
annually. The decision to proceed with the project depends on a number of factors, 
such as exemption of taxes for alternative fuels, use of residuals generated in the 
process for co-generation, etc. Should the project proceed, it could become the 
largest single consumer of old boxboard in Ontario; 

• a composting trial initiated by PPEC using boxboard as a feedstock met with 
disappointing results. High boron levels in finished compost persisted throughout 
the tests. These were attributed to the type of boxboard packaging (i.e. 
soap/detergent packaging) used as feedstock as well as the glues (with high boron 
content) used to consUuct the containers (Recycling Canada, April 1992); 

May 1994 " '■ Page H2-9 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



• corporate initiatives exist to utilize recycled boxboard or to design for recycling. 
For example, Kraft Foods has switched from using a hot-melt glue to a water 
soluble glue in boxboard containers. Water soluble glues can be more easily and 
effectively removed during the cleaning process; 

• some companies have taken the initiative to use more post-consumer boxboard. 
For example. Proctor & Gamble and Lever Brothers are now specifying a minimum 
of 25% post consumer boxboard as filler stock in their detergent containers and 
chipboard. These and other efforts in market development will increase the demand 
for boxboard with recycled content (Quinte, April 1993). 

Other markets for boxboard are also being explored. These include animal bedding, building 
materials, roofing shingles, gypsum liner, construction paper, flower pots and insulation. If 
developed, some of these alternative boxboard end uses would be on a local or small scale. 

Markets Outlook for GTA Collected Boxboard ■ tr 

The demand for post consumer boxboard traditionally has been relatively low in Ontario. If 
significant boxboard recovery efforts are initiated (e.g. if all GTA municipalities initiate 
expanded Blue Box programs), supply would probably exceed demand under current 
conditions. . -^ • 

H2.5 Markets for Old Magazines (OMG) 

Introduction . 

OMG has found a niche in the paper market as a secondary feedstock material m the producaon 
of recycled content newsprint. Currently, most newsprint mills in Ontario accept OMG in the , 
de-inking process. OMG offers benefits associated with a higher quality fibre and the clay 
content which increases the de-inking efficiency {Waste Age, Jan. 1991). 

Definition . 

Old magazines (OMG) are now acknowledged as a separate grade of paper stock, having 
previously been considered part of the mixed paper grade. Magazines (Grade 10) consist of 
dry, baled coated magazines, catalogues, and similar printed materials and may contain a small 
percentage of uncoated news-type papers. Prohibited materials may not exceed 1 percent and 
total outthrows (not meeting the grade) may not exceed 3 percent. Common sources of OMG 
include overissue magazines and catalogues and residentially-generated magazines (ISRI, 
1991). • . 

Historical OMG Market Overview 

Prior to 1990, post-consumer magazine collection was virtually non-existent. Any recycling of 
OMG consisted of collecting post- industrial cuttings from printing plants. The traditional 
production process for newsprint did not permit the direct incorporation of old magazines due 
to the ink and glue contaminants. With the significant increase in de-inking capacity in North 
American newsprint mills, demand for OMG has soared, (Waste Age, January 1991). 

Current OMG Market Overview 

Newsprint mills are the largest consumers of OMG, requiring OMG as a secondary feedstock 
in the production of recycled content newsprint. Technological developments in the de-inking 
process for old newsprint have resulted in the need for OMG as a feedstock due to it's strong 
fibres and clay content. Clay coatings are now considered valuable in de-inking mills to ensure 
prime efficiency by adding stiffness, bulk and opacity to the newsprint. The clay stock in the 
OMG is used in the notation de-inking system to stabilize air bubbles generated as part of the 
cleaning process, which in turn facilitates separation of the ink from the ONP. 

With the exception of Spruce Falls, ONP mills are reported to utilize old magazines at an average 
projected ratio of at least 7:3 (ONP:OMG) in newspaper production. It should be noted 

May 1994 " ~~ Page H2-10 



Ministry of Environmeiu and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



however, thai while a 30:70 ratio of OMG to ONP has generally been assumed for de-inked 
newsprint, some major mills have significantly downsized OMG requirements. Resource 
Recycling reports that one mill which had planned a 60:40 mix of ONP to OMG has found that 
between 5 and 10% OMG is a more satisfactory mix (Resource Recycling November, 1993). It 
reports that over the next nine months, mills will continue to experiment and more clarification of 
actual OMG needs and absorption capabilities will follow. 

Table H2.4 summarizes newsprint mills in Ontario that are known to accept OMG. 

Table H2.4 
Ontario Newsprint Mills Using OMG 



Tfnir 



QUNO 



Atlanuc Newsprint 
Company 



Abitibi i*rice 
Abitibi Price 



Canadian Pacific Forest 
Products 



Total 



Location 



Thorold 



Whitby 



Iroquois Falls 



Fort William 



Thunder Bay 



Estimated Xm OMG 
Consmtiption* 



82,500 



48.000 



12.900 
5.400 



36.000 



184,800 



* based on a 3:7 ratio of OMG to ONP in the production of newsprint . 
Source: CPPA 1993, RCO, 1992. . 



Some mills accept OMG baled with ONP, which reduces the sorting and processing 
requirements for operators of residential recycling programs. However, those relying on spot 
markets will have to separate OMG to meet most market specifications and receive good prices. 
Because many mills have traditionally required OMG to be delivered separately from ONP, 
there has been some reluctance by program operators to expand existing residential recycling 
programs to include OMG. 

The residential sector tends to provide a slow turnover of OMG and curbside recovery of OMG 
remains low, relative to demand. A recent U.S. study shows that approximately 10% of OMG 
generated is collected for recycling from residential sources, while a Canadian newsprint 
producer using OMG reported the ability to access only 3% of the required feedstock in the 
Northeast and in some major cities from curbside sources (Resource Recycling November, 
1993). Magazine returns from stores and newsstands are an important additional source of 
OMG (Nelson, Atlantic). 

Other major potential end uses of OMG include animal bedding, cellulose insulation, shingles, 
printing and writing paper, construction and wall board, recycled boxboard and tissue. Some 
of these end uses provide a limited demand on a local, small scale. OMG prices received from 
newsprint mills are likely to be higher which will likely deter the use of OMG for local, lower 
grade uses. .. • . 

Nlarkct Prices 

There is a limited history with respect to price trends for OMG. Prior to 1990, collection and 
sale of post-consumer magazines as a separate grade was virtually non existent. The current 
maricet price of OMG is $25-$30 per tonne (Bexton, Metro Waste Paper). The price for mixed 

ONP/OMG is also approximately $25-$3Q per tonne (Quijite. 1993). 

May 1994 '- '■ ■ PageHIAl 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Prices between $10-$30 per tonne are still not sufficient to attract many programs to collect 
OMG. A price between $25-$30 per tonne is considered a threshold price; prices above $30 
per tonne should attract many more collection programs (Apotheker, February 1993). 

Future Market Trends For OMG 

New developments have permitted some mills (such as Manistique, Michigan) to use 100% 
OMG in the production of newsprint. 

Additions to recycled newsprint capacity in Ontario and Quebec are anticipated to increase 
overall demand for OMG by about 160,000 tonnes. The mills slated for future consumption of 
OMG arc listed in Table H2.5. Demand for OMG within Ontario, coupled with that of (Quebec 
(where local collection is very small) will significantly outstrip supply from within Ontario. , 

Table H2.5 
Mills with Future OMG Capacity 



l^ocitlon 


Proposed 


OMG Re|ili|iiti«iiits 

Ooiliiil;:;:;::;:: 


Ontario 

Boise Cascades 

Quebec 

Donahue 

Daishowa 

Kruger 

Dwntar 

Cascades 

Stone 


(1995) 

(1995) 
(1993) 
(1993) 
(1995+) 
(1993) 
(1995) 


32,000 tonnes 

27,000 
30,000 
18.000 
unknown 
31,000 
22,000 




Total OMG capacity 


160,000 


Source: (Sarazin, Daishowa) (CPPA. 1993) (RCO, 1992) 



Market Outlmk For GTA Generated OMG 

With the anticipated strong demand for ONP in Ontario and the beneficial characteristics 
associated with OMG as a secondary feedstock in the production of newsprint, markets for 
OMG are expected to remain strong. Pre-consumer sources of OMG (newsstand returns and 
printing plant cuttings and over runs) are of high quality. Annual demand from Ontario 
newsprint mills for an estimated 185,000 tonnes of OMG will provide markets for a significant 
level of post-consumer OMG collection within the GTA. 

In summary, markets for OMG which could be collected and diverted in GTA are cortsidered 
strong and are expected to remain viablfe for the foreseeable future. 

H2,6 Markets for Fine Paper 

Introduction 

The primary markets for recovered fine paper include: 

• fine paper; 

• tissue; 

• linerboard; 

• corrugated containers; 



May 1994 



Page H2-I2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



• shingles and roofing paper, paperliner for drywall, boxboard, molded pulp, 
insulation and/or newsprint. 

The manufacturing process for printing and writing paper and tissue products requires more 
sophisticated cleaning procedures than those required in the manufacturing of containerboard 
and boxboard. Introduction of legislation and policies requiring recycled content in printing 
papers coupled with increased fine paper recycling programs in offices has spurred Canadian 
mills that manufacture printing and writing papers to install de-inking facilities. Since 1985, the 
number of Canadian printing and writing paper manufacturing companies using recovered fme 
paper has increased from one to sixteen (CPPA, 1993). 

Definition . . 

The term fme paper is often used interchangeably with high grade office paper and pnnung- 
writing paper. The defmition of fine paper includes computer print out (CPO), white ledger and 
copy paper, and other papers that are ground wood free. (Typical groundwood paper products 
include magazines, newsprint, catalogues, and telephone directories). According to the Institute 
of Scrap Recycling Industries, fine paper consists of several grades of paper such as Grade 
#40 - sorted white ledger. Grade #38 - sorted coloured ledger, and Grade #42 - computer print 
out. This definition specifically excludes a sub-category of high papers known as pulp 
substitutes which are pre-consumer specialty paper grades collected from industrial scrap 
sources (ISRI. 1991). 

Historical Fine Paper Market Overview 

The introduction of post-consumer fine paper in the manufacturing of printing and writing 
paper is a recent trend. Variations in the technology requirements have hindered the use of 
post-consumer fine paper in the past. Prior to the 1990s, most printing and writing paper was 
made from virgin fibres. Only recently have mills introduced de-inking procedures. Before 
that, the vast majority of mills in North America operated widiout de-inking facilities; therefore, 
secondary fibres had to meet stringent specifications, including minimal ink, and no 
contaminants. Mills preferred the pre-consumer fme paper furnish because it contained long 
fibres and no ink. According to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA), in 1985 
only one Canadian mill used recovered paper as part of its fibre supply. In 1989, the number 
of Canadian mills using recovered paper had increased to two and it had reached sixteen by 
1993. Eight mills located in Ontario accept fine paper/mixed paper. Other typical uses for 
recovered fine paper include manufacturing of tissue products and containerboard. 

The collection and incorporation of pqsi-consumer fine paper from offices ai^d other IC&I 
generators is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the past, most secondary fibres used in the 
production of printing and writing papers and tissue products have consisted of pre-consumer 
fibres from offcuts, trimmings, and floof scraps generated by print shops and paper 
manufacturers. Some computer printout and white ledger paper from offices and other post- 
consumer generators were incorporated, but in relatively small portions. In 1987, the 
secondary fine paper furnish used by U.S. mills consisted of 14% pre-consumer fibre and 
26% post-consumer fibre, according to the United States Office of Technology Assistance 
(1989). 

Current Fine Paper Market Overview 

The 1990s have become a turning point for use of, and demand for, fine paper by North 
American mills. 

Paper mills have recently added de-inking facilities in order to meet the increased availability of 
post-consumer fine paper, coupled with the increased demand for recycled content paper 
products. The de-inking process removes inks, coatings, bindings, and other contaminants 
from the waste paper. The advent of the de-inking process has allowed paper mills to use a 

wider variety of fine paper grades inclu ding fine paper containing ink. 

May J 994 ^a«f '/^-/i 



Ministry of Environmeni and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table H2.6 provides a list of Ontario mills producing recycled content paper, using fine paper 
grades or mixed paper. 

Table H2.6 
Mills in Ontario Accepting Fine Paper Grades or Mixed Paper* 



Mm 


mmmmmmmttn''-- 


Frodact 


Adantic Packaging 


Whitby 


Tissue 


Beaverwood Fibre 


Thorold 


Special Fibreboard 


Sonoco (Paperboard 
Industries) 


Toronto 


Container Board 


QUNO 


Thorold 


Pilot project to incorporate 
into newsprint 


Nasada 


Thorold 


Fine Paper 


Noranda Forest 


Thorold 


Fine Paper 


Strathcona 


Napanee 


Boxboard 


Domtar 


Mississauga 


Containerboard 


Domtar 


St. Catharines 


Fine Paper 


Source: Wood, CPPA 
*Note: List is not complett 


; since not every CPPA member reports this information 



The demand for recovered printing and writing papers has increased over the past several 
years. According to CPPA, domestic collection of recovered printing and writing paper from 
Canadian collection programs (mostly office paper prograrhs) was estimated at 350,000 tonnes 
in 1991 and 380,000 tonnes in 1992 (CPPA, 1993). 

Fine paper is in high demand for recycling because of the relatively high maiicet price paid for 
ledger paper and computer printout paper compared with mixed paper and other groundwood 
papers (such as ONP, and OCC). 

Many offices in Southern Ontario are currently engaged in office paper recycling programs. 
Additional sources will be realized once residential curbside programs are expanded to include 
fine paper collection. All fine paper collected through office paper recycling programs in 
Ontario is readily absorbed by the Ontario mills. According to one source, Ontario mills will 
have no problem incorporating additional supplies of fine paper into their productions 
(confidential source). Currently, Ontario mills import recovered fine paper from the United 
States, which is experiencing a temporary glut of fine paper. 

Market Prices • 

In general, prices paid for fine paper vary dramatically depending on whether it is sold as 
mixed high grade (includes CPO, white ledger, and coloured ledger) or is sorted and sold as 
individual grades. For example, in late 1990, office mix traded at minus $10 per tonne in 
Toronto compared to $140 per tonne for CPO, and $1 10 to $145 per tonne for white and 
coloured ledger. In 1992, the price for CPO ranged from $190 to $220 per tonne and the price 
for while and coloured ledger ranged from $120 to $140 per tonne. On average, the fine paper 
grade collected between $1{X) to $120 per tonne (Hunter. Su-aihcona and Remouche, Domtar). 

Prices for all sub grades of fine paper are expected to improve as capacity and demand increase 
over the next several years. 



May 1994 



Page H2-14 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Diversion Trends 

Although difficult to predict, efforts to reduce paper use through the use of electronic mail and 
other technical developments which may move us closer to the "paperless office", coupled with 
the reuse of paper, and double-sided printing and photocopying may result in a reduction in 
paper use and, correspondingly, the availability of post-consumer high grade paper from the 
IC&I sector. 

The generation of fine paper by the residential sector may be affected as efforts to reduce the 
volume of junk mail increase. The trend among companies which distribute flyers and 
pamphlets is to switch from using fine paper to using newsprint. This activity may have some 
impact on the availability of post-consumer fine paper generated by the residential sector. 

Marlcet Development and Future Market Trends For Fine Paper ' 

Several factors have already contributed to the increased use of post-consumer fine paper. 
These include . 

• the introduction of legislation and policies by government agencies and individual 
companies to use recycled content ledger paper (as seen of a federal level in the 
U.S.)(Wajfe//Aies, December 1993); 

• increased demand by consumers for recycled content paper and tissue products; and 

• the introduction of the Provincial 3Rs Regulations requiring source separation of 
office paper by 8 IC&l sectors. 

his also anticipated that a recent requirement by U.S. Executive Order on Federal Acquisition, 
Recycling and Waste Reduction, signed on October 20, 1993, will increase demand in the 
private sector (and at other levels of government) for recycled papers. This order mandates U.S. 
federal government agencies to buy recycled paper, requiring that all printing and writing paper 
purchased by the federal government contain 20 percent post-consumer content by the end of 
1994. This will increase to 30 percent by the end of 1999 {Wastelines, December, 1993). While 
this specific initiative may not directly affect Canadian or Ontario manufacturing (Canadian paper 
is not usually sold to die U.S. government), since paper operates in a global market, it may result 
in a general increase in demand for recycled paper. 

However, contamination of high grade papers in office paper recycling programs has 
traditionally proven to be a problem for paper collectors. Contaminants, such as self-adhesive 
labels, window envelopes, thermal (facsimile) paper, and sticky notes devalue the office mix if 
they are mixed wiUi high grade fine paper. Several of these issues are being resolved. Office 
paper recycling programs that required a high level of paper separation activity by employees 
often led to poor product quality. The emerging trend among paper collectors is to establish 
mixed office paper recycling programs. The collected paper mix is then separated for its high 
grade papers at a processing facility. 

The increased use of laser printers has also posed a problem for paper collectors and paper 
mills. Laser printed fine paper is difficult to de-ink sufficiently using the conventional flotation 
de-inking process. Despite the high quality ledger paper used in laser printing, this paper is 
most often used in products that do not require de-inking, such as paperboard, containerboard, 
and molded pulp products. Recent innovations in the de-inking technology are now enabling 
mills to use laser printed papers in their high grade feedstock. Other technical innovations are 
now permitting other post-consumer paper products (such as thermal (facsimile) paper, and 
window envelopes) to be included in recycling programs. Examples of this include: 



\fay 1994 ^ ' ^ Page H2-15 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



• 3M has modified the glue used in iheir Post It notes to make them more recyclable. 
Their sticky notes are no longer considered a contaminant in recovered high grade 
paper {Chemical Marketing Reporter, Jan, 1992). 

• Eastman Kodak is reportedly investigating the development of a mini mill at the site 
of its Rochester, New York research park office facility. Recovered paper from the 
44,000 employee facility would be pulped, but not de-inked. Kodak is evaluating 
potential applications for the pulp. 

• Inter City Papers of Toronto claims to be the first company in Canada to collect fine 
paper from its clients and then provide recycled content paper made from the 
recovered fine paper as part of a closed-loop recycling process {Recycling Canada, 
Feb. 1992). 

In addition, demonstration projects have been conducted to determine the feasibility of 
interdicting post-consumer fine paper as feedstock in compost production and ethanol 
production {Biocycle, Dec, 1992). : 

Market Outlook For GTA Generated Fine Paper 

Based on the above discussion, it is anticipated that markets will be available for fine paper 
recovered in GTA for the foreseeable future. , , 

H2.7 Markets for Mixed Paper and Other Fibres 

Introduction 

Mixed waste paper grade is one of the more difficult grades to recycle due to the variability of 
paper grades within the mixture. Mixed grades vary in fibre length, contamination levels, and 
processing requirements. Consequendy, this mix can be difficult to market when other more 
homogeneous substitutes, such as ONP and OCC, are readily available at a reasonable price. 

There has been a recent change in the overall mixture of the mixed grade going to mills. 
Recycling companies and brokers increasingly tend to remove the more valuable, high grade 
paper, such as computer printout paper and white ledger paper, from the stream. The end use 
market for mixed paper, however, has remained fairly consistent over time. The major end 
users include mills manufacturing tissue products; boxb.oard; containerboard; and (to a lesser 
extent) roofing materials. 

Definition 

Mixed paper is a category that comprises all grades of waste paper including groundwood 
stock (ONP, OMG, OCC) and fine paper (CPO. white ledger and coloured ledger). Definitions 
of mixed paper vary according to the required use. The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, 
classifies mixed paper into two grades: 

• Grade #1 - Mixed Paper - consists of a mixture of various qualities of paper not 
limited as to type of packing or fibre content. Prohibited materials may not exceed 
2% and total outthrows may not exceed 10%; 

• Grade #2 - Super Mixed Paper - consists of a baled, clean sorted mixture of 
various qualities of papers containing less than 10% of groundwood stock, coated 
or uncoaied. Prohibited materials may not exceed 0.5% and total outthrows may not 

■ exceed 3%. 

Based on these definitions, mixed paper can be understood, for the purposes of this document, 
to include a wide variety of papers (including ONP. OCC, boxboard, packaging materials, 
envelopes, and magazines) all in a mixed form. Mixed paper, by definition, is unsorted. 
May 1994 PageH2-16 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



However, it is always possible ihat other higher grades of waste papers will be sorted from it 
and sold separately for considerably higher prices. 

Historical Mixed Paper Market Overview 

Mixed paper has typically been used by mills in processes that have higher tolerance for 
contamination and can accept heterogeneous feedstock mixes. Purchasers of mixed paper 
include mills manufacturing: 

• box board; . 
•. containerboard; 

• molded pulp products; 

• roofing products. . 

The use of mixed paper has been influenced by price and availability. Due to the nature of the 
manufacturing process, mills producing containerboard, boxboard, and roofing products can 
effectively substitute mixed paper for ONP and OCC as the prices fluctuate. 

Consumption of mixed paper by Canadian mills has steadily increased from 50,000 tonnes in 
1975 to 121,000 tonnes in 1988 (CPPA, 1991). However, the number of mills capable of 
using mixed paper is limited due to the problems associated with high levels of unknown 
mixed grades and contamination levels (Wood, CPPA).. 

Current Mixed Paper Marltet Overview 

Unlike the fine paper market, end uses for mixed paper have not varied over the years. 
Boxboard industries are reported to have the potential to use as much as 40-50% mixed paper 
as furnish (Ruston, Jan. 1992). Corrugated medium manufacturers are also able to absorb 
minor fractions (10-20%) of residential mixed paper grades, provided contamination levels are 
not too high. Products such as asphalt-coated roofing fell and the paperboard lining of gypsum 
wall board have also provided a major outlet for mixed paper. In Ontario however, much of the 
mixed paper is consumed primarily by mills manufacturing tissue paper products, such as 
napkins, toilet paper, tissue paper, and containerboard. 

Since 1988, the reported consuhiption of mixed paper by mills has declined. This is attributed 
partly to the low prices for ONP and OCC substitutes over the past several years, and partly to 
increased activity by paper collectors to separate out the higher grade ledger paper and 
computer print-out paper. Mills generally prefer ONP because it is less contaminated and easier 
to manage in the manufacturing process. Despite the decline, over the past two years 
consumption by Canadian mills of mixed paper has remained relatively stable, averaging 
between 104,000 tonnes and 109,000 tonnes for the years 1990 and 1991. respectively 
(CPPA, 1991). 

In addition, demand for mixed paper, like other paper markets, is affected by consumer 
demand for recycled content paper and packaging products. Customer demand for tissiie 
products containing recycled content has steadily increased over the past several years. This 
has affected the demand for mixed paper and its substitutes by those mills producing tissue 
products. The mixed paper market also has been affected by the strengthening of the organic 
roofing market. 

Marliet ■ Prices 

The price paid for mixed paper is highly variable because the market for this commodity 
fluctuates with demand and the quality of the mixture required by individual mills. Prices have 
varied, ranging from $0 to 30 per tonne, with some mills paying virtually nothing for highly 
irregular mixed blends (Wood, CPPA and Dunkley, Quinte). 

May 1994 ~ '■ Page H2-17 



Ministry of En vironment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



In general, low prices for mixed paper can be expected to continue as long as inexpensive ONP 
and OCC grades are available. As prices for ONP and (XC rise, demand and prices for mixed 
waste paper should rise as well. Prices may increase as a result of increased demand for mixed 
paper resulting from new technological innovations that permit greater use of mixed paper as a 
secondary feedstock. 

Diversion Trends 

As with office paper, it is difficult to predict the effect of efforts to reduce paper use such as: 
the use of electronic mail and other innovations, which may move society towards the 
paperless office; increased consumer resistance to junk mail; reuse of paper and packaging; 
supplier take-back programs for packaging; and double-Sided printing and photocopying. 
Recycling will continue to increase marginally in the IC&I sector, with the major differences 
occurring in the type of materials permitted in the recycling su-eam. New technological 
innovations should result in the expansion of the types of mixed paper products permitted in 
the recycling stream (Recycling Times, Sept 1991). 

Collection of mixed paper products will continue in the residential sector as well with continued 
expansion of the types of paper materials permitted in the recycling stream. 

Market Development and Future Market Trends For Mixed Paper 

Several demonstration projects have commenced recently which incorporate mixed paper in 
innovative production processes. Demonstration projects have been conducted to determine the 
feasibility of introducing post-consumer paper as feedstock in compost production and ethanol 
production. For example, two separate composting projects have begun in Durham, North 
Carolina and Ulster County. New York which use mixed residential paper as a compost 
feedstock (Biocycle. August, 1992 and December, 1992). Elsewhere, in Norval, Ontario and 
Gainsville, Rorida, concurrent experiments are being conducted to test the production of fuel 
alcohol using low grade paper products (Norval experiment) and paper mill sludges (Gainsville 
experiment) (Resource Recycling, Aug 1992 and Dec 1992). 

In addition. Can Fibre Group Ltd in Oakville, Ontario recently announced the development of 
an innovative technology that manufactures a wood-like product using wood and paper waste. 
The resulting fiberboard can be used in the production of furniture and windows (Resource 
yfecyd/n^, March 1993). 

A new, emerging technology which may have a significant effect on the use and demand for 
lower grades of mixed paper is a steam explosion process patented by Recoupe Recycling of 
Montreal, Quebec. The technology uses steam to explode break the paper bonds of different 
grades of paper to produce a more homogenous fibre mixture (Recycling Times, May 1992). 

Market Outlook for GTA Generated Mixed Paper 

In the short-term, the demand will remain low for mixed paper used by paper mills as long as 
the mixed paper is unsorted and contains irregular grades. Composting and ethanol projects 
provide a potential pnd use market for these irregular mixes of paper. Mixed paper that is 
sorted into different grades of paper will continue to be used in the manufacturing of tissue 
products, boxboard and containe'rboard. 

Markets for Telephone Directories (OTD) 

Telephone directories are a sub-set of the mixed paper category, and are discussed separately 
because of several product-specific issues and initiatives. Significant gains have been made in 
the past few years in recycling of telephone directories. The fibre is high quality, but dyes, 
cover stock coatings and bindings presented problems for the mills. All GTA municipalities 
recover telephone directories, as do a number of IC&I establishments. 



May 1994 Page H2-18 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA SRs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Cascades in Quebec recycled the majority of OTD from Ontario residential recycling programs 
in 1992 (Rowden, Cascades). Offshore markets, pariiculariy in the Pacific Rim, also accept 
telephone directories. Cascades recycled 5,550 tonnes of OTD from Ontario; an additional 250 
tonnes was exported in 1992. 

Cascades recycles telephone directories into tissue products which contain a minimum of 33% 
content of yellow and white phonebooks. Examples of these products are the kitchen paper 
rolls currently sold by Loblaws and Canadian Tire as one of their line of "green" products 
(MOEE, 1993). 

Telephone directories must be supplied to markets either strapped or in gaylofds. They must 
be free of any other fibre contaminants. Some paper mills recycling OTD have developed 
systems to handle hot melt glue, while others prefer water soluble glues. Thus individual mills 
may have additional specific requirements. Ontario phonebooks (Bell Canada) are now printed 
with vegetable based inks, and the bindings are made with water soluble glues (Bell, 1992) in 
order to facilitate recycling. 

Market Development and Future Market Trends for OTD 

Bell Canada has initiated major research efforts to increase the recyclability of their directories 
as well as funding research into alternative uses for old directories. It is also continuing to 
increase the recycled content of its directory paper. 

Bell has supported research into the use of directories for animal bedding and in the production 
of fiberboard. Both of these uses depend on the availability of markets. Shredded telephone 
directories have been successfully used as animal bedding at the New Liskeard College of 
Agriculture. Bell currently estimates directory recovery and recycling in the GTA at 
approximately 50%. Recovery levels could improve due to increased capacity at Cascades and 
other markets. 

The major companies and/or organizations that produce telephone directories are active in 
supporting market development by implementing product stewardship initiatives and 
conducting research and development into new markets. For example, YPPEN members are 
hoping to recycle OTD back into directory paper and are committed to achieving 10% recycled 
content by 1993, 25% by 1995 and 40% by 1998 in their directories. This level of recycled 
content will stimulate demand for OTD from the North American mills. YPPEN is now 
collecting data to monitor recovery of OTD. They estimate that 17% of available phonebooks 
were collected as an average across North America, amounting to a total of 500,000 tons 
{Resource Recycling, November, 1993) (450,000 tonnes). 

Glue and binding changes and the elimination of plastic coatings have also helped increase the 
recyclability of OTD, allowing access to a broader range of markets. These include end uses 
which recycle other fibres including boxboard, cellulose insulation, building materials and 
molded pulp products (Bell, 1992). 

Telephone directory manufacturers have reduced paper usage through light weighting. 
Directories are also smaller to some extent due to the recession. Combined, these account for 
about a 15-20% reduction in total paper used for directories in Ontario over the past 2 years 
(Bell, 1992). 

Research into the use of electronic directories is underway, but will require subscribers to have 
the necessary hardware and software. Most believe that they will not be introduced for about 5 
years. Moreover, Bell is currently required by the CRTC to provide each subscriber with a 
directory. 

May 1994 Page H2-19 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The current market price of telephone directories is between $0-$5 per tonne and export 
markets pay $15 to $25 per tonne. 

Markets for Polycoat Packaging 

Polycoat packaging is a category that now includes gable top cartons, tetra bricks and polycoat 
packages. It is used primarily in milk containers and Tetra Pak drink boxes. Both Tetra Pak 
Inc. and International Paper Inc. which produce these packages have supported pilot collection 
and recycling programs in some jurisdictions outside of Ontario. Metro Toronto has committed 
to adding polycoat to their Blue Box program in 1994, and the Quinte program in Eastern 
Ontario has been collecting polycoat for over a year. Brampton and Mississauga are also 
involved in pilot programs that include polycoat for recycling. Polycoat is one of the materials 
which would be collected in Expanded Blue Box programs considered for the residential 
sector. 

Due to plant size and feedstock requirements, it is considered unlikely that there ever will be a 
direct end-market for polycoat/located in the GTA (Harris, 1994). The polycoat collected in 
Quinte (milk containers and frozen food containers) is currently sold to Donco Paper in Ohio 
(Quinte, August, 1993). Four Ponderosa Fibres mills (California, Georgia and Tennessee) 
accept milk cartons (and drink boxes) for making market pulp used in writing paper, tissue, 
coated stock and copy paper at a higher price. Also, James River, Wisconsin and Pope & 
Talbot, Pennsylvania, accept polycoat for use in the production of tissue. 

In general, most mills with a hydrapulper can accept polycoat. After hydrapulping, the pulp 
yield is 75% for milk cartons (40% for drink boxes) {Wastelines, February, 1991). The 
quality of the pulp is very high, and is similar to computer printouts, only the fibres are 
stronger and longer. Paper fibres are hydrapulped, and up to 10% can be incorporated in a 
pulp stream for paper manufacturing. Table H2.7 lists U.S. mills presently accepting post- 
consumer milk cartons. 

Tabic H2.7 
U.S. Mills Currently Accepting Polycoat 



iiteii^Uliii:::! 


■ W(iMi\i)ti''':Miy:: 


:K^::mn^}mmm:m-mm 


mm 


bonco Paper 
Pope & Talbot 
Jame$ River 
Ponderosa 
Weyerhaeuser 


Ohio 

PA 

WI 

CA, GA, TN, WI 

WI 


mixed paper 

tissue 

tissue 

market pulp 

corrugated medium 



International Paper Inc. is also in the process of constructing a mill in the New England 
Region. 

Westvaco Mills presently converts a portion of old polycoat packaging into 125 ml drink boxes 
for McCain (Kabayama, 1994). However, the fibre from post-consumer milk cartons and 
drink boxes is often sold for the production of corrugated cardboard by Weyerhaeuser (located 
in Washington stale, for Tetra Pak). The pulp is often used in the production, of "merchant 
pulp". It may be used in a variety of end use applications and in some cases is used for a 
relatively low value product, (which does not utilize the post-consumer pulp to its full 
potential). 

Quinte received approximately $90 (U.S.) per tonne of polycoat from Donco Paper in Ohio and 
Ponderosa Fiber currently pays $120 per air-dried ton. Also, seven mills accepting post- 
consumer milk cartons (mixed with drink boxes) in the U.S. guaranteed long-term prices (up 



May 1994 



Page H2-20 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



10 the end of 1993) of $120 and $150 per ton, however it is reported that these prices have 
been artificially inflated in order to stimulate collection (Resource Recycling, August 1992). 

GTA collected milk cartons are not likely to provide sufficient supply to justify a new 
hydrapluping mill (Harris, International Paper) located in the region . However, markets are 
readily available in the northeastern U.S. to process GTA-coUected polycoat 

Market Outlook for Mixed Paper and Other Fibres 

From the above discussion, it is concluded that markets will exist for most mixed papers as 
long as they are sorted into different paper grades. Prices will vary depending on the material. 



May 1994 Page H2-21 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H3.0 MARKETS FOR PLASTICS 



H3.1 



Introduction 



Recycling of post-consumer plastics has not yet been fully developed for the range many 
resins, and combination of resins that are presently used and disposed. In general, markets for 
single resin plastic materials are stronger than for 'composites'. Markets for PET are better 
developed than they are for other materials (i.e., PP, PVC, PS). 

End markets for recycled plastics require clean, stable sources of secondary feedstock. 
Plastics, unlike other recyclable materials, have an extremely low tolerance for contamination 
by other resin types and colours. Efforts have been and continue to be directed toward 
developing technologies capable of identifying, segregating and cleaning plastics. 

Definition ^ .,-•,. j-rr • 

Plastics are a petroleum -based product consisting of a great vanety of resms with diffenng 
properties. Plastic resins are either thermoset or thermoplastic. Thermosetting plastics, such as 
fibreglass, cure or harden as a result of a chemical reaction, and cannot be remelted after being 
set. Thermoplastics can be remelted and shaped again. The packaging industry primarily uses 
thermoplastics because they can be easily formed into a multitude of shapes (B.C. 
Environment, 1990). Table H3.1 identifies typical plastic resins formed into thermoplastic 
packages. 

Table H3.1 
Plastic Resins Used In Packaging 



Plastic Resin 



PET 

(Polyethylene 
Terapthalate) 



HOPE 

(High Density 
Polyethylene) 



PVC 

(Polyvinyl Chloride) 



LDPE 

(Low Density 
Polyethylene) 



Deflnition 



P-100 -PET Mixed, botUes only 
P-101 -PET Clear, bottles only 
P-102- PET Green, bottles only 
P-103- PET Clear and Giieen 
P-104- PET Custom, bottles & jar 
P-105 - PET Mixed, containers 



P-200 - HDPE Mixed, botUes 
P-201- HDPE Natural, bottles 
P-202- Pigmented, bottles only 



P-300- PVC Mixed, bottles only 
P-301- PVC Natural, bottles 
P-302-PVC Pigmented, botUes 



P-400- LDPE Mixed, bottles only 
P-401-LDPE Mixed, bottles only 
P-402-LDPE Pigmented, bottles 



PP 

(Polypropylene) 



P^ 

(Polystyrene) 



P-5{X)-PP Mixed, bottles only 
P-501-PP Natural, bottles only 
P-502-PP Pigmented, bottles 



Packaging ProductT 

Soft drink bottles 

tubs 

trays 

peanut butter containers 



milk jugs 

water jugs 

liquid detergents 



bhster packs 

cooking oil bottles 

liquid detergent bottles 



squeeze bottles 

bread bags 
shopping bags 



P-600- PS Mixed, bottles only 
P-601- PS Natural, bottles only 
P-602- PS Pigmented, bottles 



syrup bottles 

ketchup bottles 

yogurt containers 

margarine tubs 

coffee cups 

meat u-ays 

packaging "peanuts" 



Sources: ISRI, 1991 

B.C. Environment, 1990 



May 1994 



Page H3-1 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H3.2 Plastics Market Overview 

The advantages associated with plastics include light weight, durability, low cost, and ease of 
processing/converting. These advantages have led to a rapid increase in both the types of 
plastics resins available, and their use over the past couple of decades. According to the 
Society of Plastics Industry (SPI) domestic resin consumption in the U.S. rose 9.8% between 
1991 and 1992 (Resource Recycling Plastics Recycling Update, January, 1993). 

Over the years, the packaging industry has used different plastic resins for similar end-use 
applications. For example, tubs may be manufactured from a variety of resin types, including 
LDPE, HDPE and PP (Quinte, 1993). Detergent bottles may be manufactured from a variety 
of resins, including HDPE, PVC, PET and PP. Recycling companies most often have had to 
rely on hand sorting to separate the different resin types; however, poor or non-existent 
labelling make this difficult. Manual sorting relies on the ability of visually detect different 
resin properties which is one of its major limitations. 

Greater emphasis has been placed recently on resin identification and developing technology to 
permit automatic identification and sorting of different resin types. The existing resin 
identification strategy was originally developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. 
(SPI) which introduced a voluntary plastic coding system to help recyclers identify the types of 
plastic used in making individual bottles and containers. The system was introduced as a 
temporary solution to the sortation and identification problem facing recycling companies. The 
coding system has been successful to the extent that industry has adopted its use and 
voluntarily labelled its plastic products. As of February, 1994, 39 states in the U.S. have 
passed legislation mandating the coding of plastic bottles and containers using the SPI coding 
system {Environmental Packaging, February, 1994). Concerns with potential 
misunderstandings of the coding system are currently being addressed by the National 
Recycling Coalition and the Society of the Plastics Industry in the U.S. The SPI coding 
system is as follows: 

#1 - PETE (Polyethylene Terepthalate); 
#2 - HDPE (High Density Polyethylene); 
#3 - PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride); 
#4 - LDPE (Low Density Polyethylene); 
#5 - PP (Polypropylene); 
#6 - PS (Polystyrene); 
• #7 - Other. 

For most resins, the market situation for post-consumer plastics has not changed significantly 
over the past years. The percentage of post-consumer plastics recycled compared with plastic 
sales for the years 1990 and 1991 shows marginal increases, but represents nominal 
achievements overall, as shown in Table H3.2: 

Table H3.2 
Post Consumer Plastics Recycling 



Resin 




% Plastic Sa 
1990 


es Recycled 
1991 




PET 
HDPE 

PVC 

LDPE/LLDPE 
PS 


- soft drink bottles 

- natural bottles 

- base cups 

- other packaging 

- botUes 

- other packaging 

- all packaging 


29.8 
5.9 
37.7 
0.1 

m ■ 

1:2 

0.6 


35.1 

14.0 

41.1 

. 0.6 

0.8 

1.0 

1.2 




Source: Modem Plas 


tics, 1992 









May 1994 



Page H3-2 



Ministry of Environmenl and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



In order to provide closed loop recycling wherever possible, the prime goal of plastics 
recycling is to provide a secondary feedstock material that is virtually identical to virgin 
feedstock. This requires not only separation by resin type, but also by colour. Currentiy, 
most activities to sort plastics still rely on labour-intensive, manual processing. Contaminants 
such as other resins, and small mixtures of foil, dirt, and metal fragments significantly limit the 
value of post-consumer plastics (Minnesota Office of Waste Management. 1992). 

The National Association of Plastic Container Recovery (NAPCOR) for example, is studying 
several. sortation technologies, in order to reduce this barrier to recovery and market 
development (NAPCOR, Winter, 1994). However, the high capital costs coupled with the low 
prices for virgin resins have hindered the proliferation of a widespread plastic recycling 
industry. Consequently, end use market development has lagged behind the availability of 
post-consumer plastics. 

The advantage associated with the light weight of plastic packaging has proven to be a 
disadvantage to recyclers Uying to transport the material to end markets. Some recyclers have 
begun to granulate or densify the plastic materia! at the processing facility prior to shipment tc> 
the end-use market in order to achieve increased density and reduced transportation costs. The 
recyclers must maintain very high quality control standards over the granulated/densified 
secondary feedstock to ensure low contamination levels. Once the plastic material is granulated 
or densified it is very difficult to detect contamination levels, therefore, some brokers are 
reluctant to accept granulated or densified shipments since it reduces their ability to monitor the 
quality of the material (Minnesota Office of Waste Management, 1992). However, efforts are 
underway to improve plastics sortation technology for containers and granulated materials. 

H3.3 Current Market Situation for DifTerent Plastic Materials 

The current market situation for different plastic resins varies depending on the type of resin 
and the level of market development that has taken place over the years. For this reason, each 
resin type is discussed separately. 

PET 

PET is a versatile and highly recyclable material, one that has long been included in residential 
curbside and drop-off recycling programs. PET is now mandated for collection in municipal 
recycling collection programs (by the Ontario 3Rs Regulations) and in multi-unit residential 
buildings. It is also mandated for recycling by hotels, motels and restaurants in the IC&I 
sector (MOEE, March, 1994). 

Current North American markets for PET are very strong and are continuing to ejfpand as new 
applications for the material are developed. Recycled PET can be used in a wide variety of 
applications that range from fibre for carpet (at the low value end) to bottle-grade resin (at the 
high value end). Utilization of virgin PET also continues to grow, particularly in applications 
where PET has displaced PVC (such as in some bottles, in blister packaging and other food 
packaging). While some forms of PET (e.g. A-PET and C-PET) are not collected for 
recycling, the majority of PET packaging (PETE - as in soft drink bottles) is technically 
recyclable and is collected in residential and an increasing number of IC&I programs. 

Regulations 622/85 and 623/85 of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act require that a 
recycling rate of 50% be achieved for PET soft drink bottles. Twinpak, which markets a 
portion of the PET used in soft drink containers in Ontario, has subsidized the collection and 
recycling of PET in Ontario for many years. This subsidy is currently being reduced as market 
value for clear PET has proven to be strong and stable. (Potelle, Twinpak). 

May 1994 ' '' '- PageH3-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The PET that is collected through residential and IC&I recycling programs is sold loose or 
baled. PVC contamination can render a shipment unacceptable since PET and PVC are 
incompatible resins. PVC inclusion in the PET stream compromises the end product (primarily 
through discolouration) and there is a potential for release of chlorine in the processing. The 
maximum allowable PVC contamination in PET recycling is therefore 1% (Potelle, Twinpak). 

One portion of Ontario generated PET is currently sold through Twinpak to Wellman, Inc. in 
Johnsonville, South Carolina (for processing). A sizable portion of Ontario PET is also sold to 
Plastrec of Bertherville, Quebec. Taken together, Wellman and Plastrec have capacity to 
process at least 48,100 tonnes per year of PET soft drink and some "custom" bottles (used for 
shampoos, peanut butter etc.) (Potelle, Twinpak). Twinpak pays 5-7.50 ($1 10 to $165 per 
tonne) for baled, sorted PET. The price paid by Twinpak has decreased from $400/tonne 
(approximately 180/lb.) within the last two years. The primary reason for the price drop is that 
more PET is now entering the market from non-soft drink uses such a liquor bottles, etc. 

End uses for PET continue to grow. It is used increasingly as a feedstock for carpet fibre and 
is also utilized in fiberfill, industrial strapping, textile substitutes, geotextiles (e.g. landfill 
liners) and tennis ball containers. 

Recycled PET can also be used in the manufacture of new food and soft drink containers. The 
depolymerization (methanolysis or glycolysis) processes used by Eastman, Shell, Hoechst- 
Celanese and others, now allow recycled post-consumer PET to be depolymerized and reblown 
into new bottles for use in some food applications. Concerns with depolymerization 
technology (i.e. gylycolysis, methanolysis) for PET include the high energy requirements, the 
n.eed for clean scrap, the high cost (50% more expensive than virgin plastic), and the lack of 
applicability to other resins (Powell, May 1992), A new three layered bottle that includes a 
middle layer of recycled PET has also been developed by a Japanese company. 

Other forms of PET that are generated primarily in IC&I sources include PET strapping and 
PET film (magnetic film, film packaging, blister packages etc.). Some of these (especially 
PET strapping and magnetic film) are finding viable and in some cases, lucrative markets. The 
infrastructure for collection of these materials is still underdeveloped. However, given the 
strong maikets for these materials, increased volumes arc Ukely to be recovered. 

The only PET materials for which markets are not yet strong include PET-G, a material which 
is increasingly used in bottling. PET-G containers look similar to PVC, but are made of a 
different resin. Various other food packaging (eg. ovenable trays and delidoraes) are made of 
additional PET resins which are not yet commonly recycled. 

Processing capacity for bottle grade PET in the Northeastern U.S. has grown considerably 
over the last few years and competition for clean sources of feedstock is strong. For that 
reason, there is every expectation that any amount of PET that can be recovered in the GTA 
will be readily marketable for the foreseeable future. 

HOPE 

Like PET, HDPE is collected in several municipal recycling programs across Ontario and is 
recovered in over 1,6 million households in Ontario (OMMRI, 1994). HDPE is not 
specifically mandated for collection by residential programs in the Ontario 3Rs Regulations, 
although Rigid Containers and Plastic Film (which may contain HDPE) are included in the 
Supplementary List of Materials (MOEE, March 1994). Under the 3Rs Regulations, only 
IC&I generators in Manufacturing Establishments (whose employee hours in any one month 
exceed 16,000) are required to collected plastics including HDPE jugs, pails, crates and drums. 



May 1994 PageH3^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Residential programs typically accept only bottles from food, detergent and food oils. Non- 
food bottles (i.e. oil or pesucide bottles), film bags, and shipping containers are not accepted 
for recycling. Novacor is the primary producer of HOPE virgin resin, with Dow responsible 
for a small additional portion of resin produced in Canada. 

HOPE collected through Ontario programs is purchased primarily by Dow or Dupont (the 
recycling segment of which was recently purchased by Novacor). Phillips Environmental has 
recently entered this market also as a material broker. The recovered HOPE is processed by 
Resource Plastics, Desbro Polymers, JMS Envirosave, Norseman Plastics and Plas Re-Tech 
(mixed plastics). Resource Plastics operates the largest processing facility with 7.000 tonnes 
per year capacity (Horn, 1994) for rigid plastics (with an additional 9,000 tonnes dedicated to 
film recycling). Desbro is approximately one half the size of Resource Plastics, accepting 
exclusively rigid containers. HDPE film is also processed by companies such as CAN AM 
Plastics Inc., Canadian Recycling Corporation Ltd. and Nu-Plast Inc. Processed rigid HDPE 
(which is either pelletized or flaked) is then sold back to Dow and Dupont for end-marketing. 

DuPont pays between $50-130 tonne for HDPE collected in the GTA (Riddell, DuPont 1993). 
Resource Plastics (Brantford) pays $72.50/tonne for HDPE (Horn, Resource Plastics). End- 
markets include such manufacturers as Lever, Colgate, Esso and Shell. HDPE is often 
incorporated into new bottles with recycled layers or recycled content (e.g. bottles for oil, 
cleaning products). Other portions of HDPE are used for; 

• construction and snow fence; 

• trash cans; 

• drums and pails; . 

• milk bottle cartons; 

• grocery sacks; 

• drainage pipes. 

Although resin colouring does present a difficulty, rigid HDPE is generally viewed as a 
material that is highly recyclable from a technical standpoint, as long as it is clean and free of 
contamination. For DuPont however, recycling HDPE has not been extremely profitable as 
there has not been strong market demand for the recycled HDPE (Riddell, DuPont). A key 
reason for this can be seen in prices, where the price of virgin resin over the past few yeare has 
been practically equal to or lower than recycled, with a potentially more predictable and higher 
quality of material. Dow has also had problems marketing the recycled HDPE and has been 
involved in warehousing material pending firmer markets (Hyde, Dow). Dow markets HDPE 
primarily to Esso and Shell. . ' 

Despite these problems, the market for HDPE is reported to be growing. For instance, 
Recycling Today reported that Procter & Gamble had set more rigorous standards for post- 
consumer content bottles, with some plastic bottles containing at least 50% recycled content 
(Recycling Today, November, 1992). However, stability remains a problem for HDPE, with 
fluctuating resin prices, low cost wide spec resins and limited demand from end users. 

The key issue in developing stable and strong end-markets for recovered HDPE lies in 
developing more cost-effective systems for sorting the material from commingled plastics. The 
resolution of this problem could result in firmer markets and greater diversion through HDPE 
recycling. Another important step to support plastics recycling (according to the recyclers) is to 
develop procurement guidelines that specify recycled content in plastic materials. Jim Horn of 
Resource Plastics suggests that a major portion of recovered plastics are sold to companies in 
the U.S. because demand in Canada is not strong enough to absorb the quantities that can be 
processed. 

May 1994 " PageHS-S 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA SRs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Plastic Film 

Plastic film may consist of HDPE. LDPE or LLDPE which may be reprocessed into pellets, 
and depending on the mix, tailored for specific markets {Modem Plastics, Mid-December, 
1992). Many large IC&I sector producers of pre and post-consumer film currently recycle 
their film through Resource Plastics. With an expanded film processing line, Resource Plastics 
now has the capacity to process 9,000 tonnes of plastic film per year (Horn, 1994). Reliable 
Recycling also accepts post-commercial film from 120 McDonald fast food restaurants in 
Ontario. 

In the past, post-consumer plastic film from industrial sources has found more markets than 
curbside plastic film. The film is used in shopping bags, garbage bags and in some cases 
(where the blend is of lower quality), may be included in general products such as plastic 
lumber {Modern Plastics, Mid December, 1992). Contamination (i.e. inks, other plastics and 
non-plastics) is the major issue for film recycling and contamination levels determine whether 
this material can be recycled back into a new film or a lower grade use. A post-consumer 
content of 15% was successfully tested in the production of garbage bags, however, a 
reduction in non-plastic and other plastic inftpurities could double this percentage (Stanford, 
Climenhague and Bateman, May 1992). One company has also developed a product line that 
is composed of 50% curbside and 50% IC&l recycled LDPE film, which can be marketed at 
prices below virgin resin. 

Until recently, collection of post-consumer plastic film from the residential sector has been 
limited in scope. In May 1993, ihe Plastics Film Manufacturers Association of Canada 
(PFMAC) strengthened its commiuneni to plastic recycling by agreeing to provide markets for- 
post-consumer plastic film collected from the curbside recycling programs of five 
municipalities (Hamilton/Wentworth, Mississauga, Peterborough, Quinte and Brampton) 
(Climenhague, 1994). The post-consumer plastic film collected includes grocery sacks, 
shopping bags, milk pouches, bread bags, produce bag and overwraps for tissue products 
{Recycling Canada, April 1993; Green Packaging 2000, May 1993; Lauzon. May 1993). 
According to PFMAC, its major market is Polychem (Climenhague. February 1994). 
Polychem toll-processes the film into pellets for resale back to PFMAC s 12 member 
companies. Additional communities (such as Bluewater) collect and market materials 
independently. Everwood and Plas - Re - Tech have been named as additional markets. 

Polystyrene (PS) 

In Ontario, a total of 400,000 households are reported to have access to Blue Box collection of 
PS (LeClaire, 1994). In early 1993, two municipalities in Ontario (Quinte and Prince Edward 
County) were collecting and shipping post-consumer polystyrene generated by the residential 
sector to CPRA (OMMRI, 1993). Three GTA municipalities (Halton, Brampton, and 
Mississauga) are also now including PS in their programs. 

In fall of 1991, the Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association (CPRA) opened the first 
Canadian polystyrene recycling facility in Mississauga, Ontario. The CPRA facility has the 
capability to process both pre-consumer polystyrene generated by the IC&I sector as well as 
post-consumer polystyrene generated by the fast food industry and the residential sector 
(EPIC, May 1991). 

At this lime the IC&l sector provides the greatest source of polystyrene to the CPRA facility 
with an estimated 48% supplied by the food services sector, 17% by hospitals, and 12% by 
educational institutions {Resource Recycling's Recycled Plastics Update, December 1992). 
Post-consumer polystyrene is pre-sorted and sent to the facility, however, initially no revenues 
are generated from the sale of the post-consumer material. CPRA pays nearly 40 per pound 
($88 per tonne), delivered (LeClaire, CPRA, 1994). Washing of the post-consumer material 
occurs in the facility. 

May 1994 '■ PageUJ^ 



Min istry of En vironment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Polystyrene processed by CPRA is primarily converted into durable plastics such as office 
products by Rubbermaid (e.g. in/out trays, scissors handles, etc. and wall sheathing) 
{Resource Recycling's Recycled Plastic Update, December 1992). Polystyrene is not typically 
converted back into food service packaging. However, a company in Sherman Oaks, 
California (Dolco Packaging) has recently received U.S. FDA non-objection status for using 
recycled PS in materials such as vegetable and fruit containers, clamshells and other food 
contact packaging {Resource Recycling. December, 1993). According to CPRA, record resin 
sales were achieved during 1993 and the early months of 1994 (LeClaire, 1994). Based on 
this recent history, it appears that markets would support collection of PS from additional 
programs in the GTA. " « . 

PVC 

According to the U-S. Vinyl Institute, post-consumer uses for PVC are growing. PVC has 
suffered from concern about hazardous components of the plastic (e.g. chlorine) and PVC 
additives. However, the Vinyl Institute suggests that a major portion of the concerns are due to 
misconceptions and that others which have constituted problems (e.g. heavy metal-based heat 
stabilizers containing cadmium and lead) are being, or have been phased out (The Vinyl 
Institute, 1994). Regardless, several product brand-owners have been switching from 
packaging materials made of PVC to other materials for which recycling facilities are readily 
available and which do not cause public concern. PET has recently displaced PVC in several 
applications (e.g. in some blister packaging, bottles etc.). 

The U.S. Vinyl Institute publishes a directory that lists over 60 U.S. recyclers for PVC. End 
uses listed include plastic lumber (for PVC commingled with other resins) as well as bottles 
and other packaging, floor tiles, notebook covers, traffic cones, construction products and 
other items. Several pilot programs are also being (or have been) completed to test and 
improve PVC recycling systems, focusing on recovery, sortation and developing end uses. 

PVC is not currently collected from the residential sector in the GTA. It is sorted from mixed 
plastics in Quinte only, and is sent to a U.S. market. Initially, B.F. Goodrich purchased this 
material for approximately $150 U.S. per tonne (F.O.B. Quinte) (Kuracz, Oxy Chem). Now. 
Oxy Chem (Amsterdam, New York) accepts the material (F.O.B) for approximately $66 US 
per ton ($1 16/tonne) (Quinte, 1993). 

Nlixed Plastics 

Markets for mixed plastics are not strong because there are relatively few opportunities for 
their use. Recyclers can typically find markets for PET and HDPE, and like to remove them 
from the plastic stream (because of their higher value). The "third bale" of material which 
remains contains plastics for which economic end markets have not been found to date. 
Superwood at one time manufactured plastic lumber from post-consumer mixed plastics. 
Financial problems coupled with the high cost of the plastic lumber forced the company's 
closure in 1991. The initiative was also impacted by process barriers which demanded high 
HDPE and LDPE (60%) content. 

Although it does not presently accept GTA material, Plas-Re-Tech of Lindsay, Ontario charges 
$65/tonne to purchase plastic feedstocks, offering lumber back to suppliers at $45/tonne. This 
is approximately twice the price of conventional lumber. Plas Re-Tech accepts HDPE, LDPE, 
Polypropylene and Polystyrene and some PET from residential and IC&I sources (RCO, 
Novemter 1992). PVC is not accepted. Plastic lumber advocates list benefits which include a 
durable damage resistant product, which is impenetrable by water and chemicals. However it 
is expensive and not visually appealing when compared with wood (Resource Recycling, July 
1990) Conflicting views over the viability of end markets for 'plastic lumber' remain. 
Published plant capacity is 2.4 tonnes per year (O'Lane, Plas-Re-Tech). 

May 1994 '■ '■ \ Page H3-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3R5 Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Some GTA mixed plastics arc also sent to Cascade Replas in DrummondviUe, Quebec. This 
facility was expected to process 4,400 tonnes in 1993 (Perrier, Cascade Replas). Cascade 
pays $40-60 tonne F.O.B. Quebec for post-consumer mixed plastics. The HDPE and PET 
must be left in bales. In other cases, mixed plastics are being shipped for free to China for use 
in the production of shoes and other products. 

H3.4 Technical and Economic Challenges 

Plastic recycling faces many technical challenges associated with sorting, washing, and 
contaminant removal, i.e., metal pieces, labels, adhesives. etc. One of the major challenges 
facing the plastic industry is lo provide an effective automated sorting system that is affordable 
to most recyclers. Automated sorting is still in the early stage of development and remains an 
expensive proposition for most recyclers (White, 1992 and Minnesota Office of Waste 
Management, June 1992), 

Conventional sorting systems generally permit two resin types to be successfully separated at a 
time but cannot economically or efficiently separate a variety of resin types at the same time. 
Most sorting and processing systems currently rely on manual, hand-sorting where workers 
selectively remove plastic containers as they move along a conveyor line. The process is 
labour intensive and considered an inefficient use of resources {Minnesota Office of Waste 
Management, June 1992). 

Recyclers/reclaimers also use technologies that separate plastic resins based on their different 
densities. Float-sink tanks are used to separate HDPE and PET, which have significantly 
different densities. The process, however, cannot effectively separate PVC and PET, because 
they have virtually the same densities. Light media separation (alcohol and water) techniques 
and cyclone (dry and wet) techniques are also used to separate plastics. Both of these methods 
rely on the different densities of the plastics (Hock, AEL). 

Plastics recycling is also influenced by economic conditions. Oil prices affect the price of 
virgin resin. Typically, an increase of $1 per barrel increases virgin plastic prices by 2.2 to 4.4 
cents per kg (Edgecombe, EPIC). In 1992, a surplus of virgin material was available on the 
market due to new capacity brought on line. This coincided with an increased supply of post 
consumer resin. Recyclers/reclaimers had a difficult time competing with low-cost virgin 
materials; in some cases, the recyclers/reclaimers went out of business. At the present time, 
there is no clear incentive for intermediate processors to son out the non-PET/HDPE resins 
when the materials have limited market value and represent only approximately 1% of all 
plastics (Proctor & Redfem Limited, 1990). It is anticipated, however, that virgin prices will 
rise over time and that this will likely help the plastic recycling industry compete with the virgin 
material producers (Nanda, Metro Toronto Works Department). 

H3.5 Future Trends For Plastics * 

Su-onger endruse markets must be developed through private and public sector initiatives, such 
as purchasing specifications and policies. An article in a document published by the New 
York Stale's Office of Recycling Market Development indicates that future plastic recycling will 
require the development of specialized, separation and processing centres that can operate at the 
necessary economy of scale to ensure secure supplies of resin types at lower costs. The article 
further states that if the plastic industry fails to develop cost competitive separation systems, the 
onus will be placed on government agencies to introduce regulatory measures such as resin 
bans, packaging regulations, and taxes (The Market. April 1993). 



May} 994 PageH3-8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade is contributing $1.5 million to 
establish the Centre for Conservation of Plastic Resources which is expected to open by late 
summer, 1994 in Brantford, Ontario. Work at the centre will focus on innovation in market 
development for value-added plastic products to support plastics recycling. 

Recent industry initiatives may also encourage greater activity by the plastics industry to 
develop the plastic recycling market. The CIPSI Packaging Stewardship Model will require 
significant changes in material management by brand owners. In essence, the model requires 
brand owners to assume greater responsibility for the generation and management of packaging 
wastes. Levies on packaging will be used to fund recycling programs and promote greater 
end-use market development for packaging materials including plastics (GPMC, 1992). 

Reduce " 

In the past 10 years, there has been a general trend towards lightweighting of plastic 
packaging, through structural design or switching to other plastics. For example, PP is 
stronger ^an HDPE and by using the lighter, stronger plastic, where viable, a 30% reduction 
in weight can be achieved. Weight reduction is also possible for film. A laminate of two 
polymers can provide advantages such as reduced weight, improved barrier properties and 
superior strength/toughness. 

An overall reduction in the generation of waste plastics is unlikely in the short-term. Existing 
plastic packagers continue to lightweight their plastic products. These new, lighter packages 
are expected to displace other packaging materials such as corrugated containers and glass. 
. The industry expects a 6.3% increase per year in the plastic packaging market - representing 
about 40% of all Canadian consumption of resin (Proctor & Redfern Limited, 1990): As a 
result, the overall percentage of packaging materials which are plastics should increase as new 
plastic products enter the market. 

Reuse 

Refillable PET botUes are currently widely marketed in Europe and Central America as a soft 
drink package. However, they are not widely available in North America. This is primarily 
due to the concern that plastics may absorb some of the contents of the bottles and that this can 
lead to potential contamination problems. Technologies are presently being developed to detect 
and remove contaminants. Successful application of these technologies is expected to increase 
the use of refillable, reusable plastics, particularly PET (Powell, May 1992). 

Companies such as Proctor and Gamble have introduced concentrated liquid detergents and 
fabric softeners in pouches to permit reuse of the original plastic containers. Other companies 
have introduced reusable pails and pallets which can be sent back to the supplier for 
refilling/reuse; for example Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola have begun to ship soft drinks in plastic, 
returnable crates. (Recychng Today, November 1992). 

Recycle 

One of the keys to successful recycling of plastics is to be able to economically identify, 
segregate, and clean the plastics. Automated sorting equipment is slowly becoming 
commercialized and over the past several years new developments in mechanical sorting have 
emerged: 

• The "bottlesort" system relies on a computer controlled sensing device that is able to 
sort plastic bottles into three streams of plastic, including the separation of PET 
from PVC, the separation of PP from HDPE, and mixed colour separation. Once 
the sensory device has identified the plastic property, the position of the bottle is 
tracked as it moves along a conveyor line and forced air is used to eject the plastic 
container into the appropriate collection container (Woods, July 1993 and Modem 

Plastics 1992). 

May 1994 ~ ~ Page H3-9 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



• The "vinylcycle" system separates PVC from other plastic bottles using an 
electromagnetic screening process. The presence of chlorine in the PVC triggers a 
computer-controlled air jet device that emits a stream of air at the PVC bottle to 
remove it from the other plastic containers (Powell, August 1992 and Modem 
Plastics 1992). 

• A relatively new technique being developed "Polyson" is capable of sorting six 
categories of bottles, including polyproylene, PVC, natural HDPE, coloured 
HDPE, green PET and clear PET. The technology sorts by differentiating between 
colours and resins using two sensors. A microprocessor analyzes the information 
from the sensors and then sends a signal to the appropriate position along the 
conveyor for the plastic container to be shot into a storage bin (Powell. August 
1992 and Woods, 1993). 

Mixed depolymerization. whereby mixed plastics would be melted down to basic polymers, 
streamed into the various resin groupings and then used for a wide number of applications is 
not yet proven by the plastics industry. This process may be successful in North Anierica in 
five or six years (Edgecombe, EPIC). 

Post-consumer plastics are being tested as a feedstock for a variety of products. Post- 
consumer paper, (i.e. old newspaper), is being combined with plastic to produce a composite 
that is claimed to be stronger than virgin plastic. Potential uses include building and structural 
applications. Automobile manufacturers, such as BMW and GM, are using post-consumer 
plastics in car parts, such as interior and bumpers (Resource Recycling's Plastic Recycling 
Update, September 1992). 

Market Outlook for GTA 

Based on the previous discussion, while markets for some plastics like PET arc strong and 
growing, markets for other plastics (especially mixed) are limited. If Expanded Blue Box or 
comprehensive three stream collection programs are considered or implemented by a number of 
GTA municipalities, a significant volume of plastics would enter the market, for which present 
technology and end market uses might be limited undercurrent circumstances. 

PET and to a lesser extent, HDPE, are the most readily marketed materials. The remaining five 
plastic types, and any composite packaging materials are considered to have underdeveloped 
markets, and will continue to require implementation of strong market development policies. 



May 1994 Page H3-10 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H4.0 MARKETS FOR ORGANICS 
H4.1 Introduction 

Food and yard waste combined account for one-third of all residential and roughly 9-10% of the 
IC&I waste stream. Organic materials can be grouped in three primary classifications, according to 
the potential end uses of the material. These three categories are: 

• food waste (including residential and IC&l food, as well as food production waste); 

• yard waste (including brush, trimmings, leaves, grass etc.); 

• compost. ' 

In comparison to traditional recyclables, end uses and markets for organic waste are just emerging. • 
Potential end uses are diverse and several potential end users are just beginning to learn of the 
availability and applicability of processed organic materials as replacement for traditional materials. 
Extensive telephone research of potential end users was conducted, however accurately defining 
the present or predicting the future market for reprocessed organic waste is difficult at this time. 

To date, the majority of finished compost material, produced mainly by municipal leaf and yard 
waste sites has been used internally by municipal parks and public works departments and made 
available to local citizens at free giveaway days. While these end uses have proven to be adequate 
in handling the limited amounts of finished compost that have been produced to date, more secure 
long term markets will be required with any expansion of organic waste collection and processing. 

For those paying markets that exist, specifications are strict. For markets where the end use is tied 
to food production (i.e. using compost as a soil amendment), consistency and quality of the 
finished material are essential. . . " 

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) has established a hierarchy for the 
management of residential and IC&I wet wastes. (Ontario Waste Reduction Office (WRO)). The 
MOEE hierarchy of organic waste diversion (in order of the highest value usage) is presented 
below: 



1. 

2. 
3. 



5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 



Reduction 

Primary Use 

Recycling which includes home or on-site composting, use of food waste for animal 

feed and application of organic waste directly on the land 

Offsite aerobic composting or anaerobic digestion, and animal feed an'd landspreading 

where waste is transported away for processing from the point of origin 

Ethanol production, where animal feed is produced as a bi-product 

Conversion of organic waste to liquid biofuels 

Volume reduction, through either anaerobic or aerobic means 

In-sink garburators for primarily food wastes 

EFW 

LandfiU 

Incineration 

Export 



End uses and paying markets for organic materials are sorted according to these categories. 
However some of these include categories which are considered beyond the scope of this report. 
Ethanol and liquid biofuel production are not considered of direct application to the organic wastes 
of interest to this study. These products generally are produced from specialty corps, rather than 



May 1994 



Page H4-1 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



from food or yard waste, although some preliminary research is being done in this area. In-sink 
garburators are not considered as an appropriate method of organic waste management for this 
study. EFW, landfill, incineration and export and outside of the scope of this study. 

This schedule focusses on the potential diversion and/or end uses for residential and IC&I food 
and yard waste presented for the first four diversion categories above. The discussion is presented 
in three separate categories: 

• food waste; 

• yard waste; and . ' ■ 

• compost. ? 

H4.2 Markets and End Uses for Food Waste 

Food waste consists of animal, vegetable, fruit scraps, surplus or spoilage, that is generated 
through the preparation and the consumption of food, by both the residential and IC&I sectors. 
Food waste management in general is guided by a hierarchy of end uses. These include: 

• source reduction; 

• human consumption of excess food; 

• animal consumption; 
, • .rendering; 

• landspreading; 

• . on-site composting/anaerobic digestion; 

• off-site composting/anaerobic digestion. 

This hierarchy is based on the highest and best use of food waste to utilize the nuuients to the 
greatest extent possible. , 

Techniques used and achievements made in the GTA for food and yard waste management are 
presented below. The information presented is based on extensive telephone research, carried Out 
in spring 1993. It is considered comprehensive but not exhaustive, as additional small scale and 
pilot projects are likely to be underway. 

Source Reduction 

The production of less waste is of first priority in the MOEE wet waste hierarchy. Through a 
program sponsored by the Ontario Green Workplace, efforts have been undertaken to reduce the 
amount of food waste generated at government institutions through the modification of menus and 
changes to the quantities of food prepared (Manager of Guelph Correctional Centre, 1992). This 
approach has b^n particularly successful in a number of correctional facilities. 

Human Consumption of Excess Food - Gleaning 

An expanding end use for surplus or off-spec food in good condition and from known reliable 
sources is food banks and social agencies. However, Uability concerns on the part of the suppliers \ 
as well as the redistribution agencies continue to be an issue. While no formal provincial 
clearinghouse exists for this type of food waste, organizations such as Daily Bread and Second 
Harvest act as brokers for receiving and redistribution. 

Toronto's Daily Bread Food Bank regularly receives truckload quantities of surplus non-perishable 
food, including breads and pasta, which is stockpiled for future use or redistributed in smaller 
quantities to other food banks within the GTA. Perishable food is also accepted, although it is not 
as easily dispersed to outlying social agencies, because of a lack of adequate refrigeration 
equipment at some of these facilities. (Nash, OrangeviUe Food Bank, 1993). 

Second Harvest, a non-profit organization dealing specifically with perishable food, locates, 
collects and delivers perishable food to various social service agencies in the Metro Toronto area. 

May 1994 Page H4-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Major donations come from small green grocers, farmers markets and fast food establishments. In 
their 1991-1992 fiscal year. Second Harvest diverted about 450 tonnes of perishable food from 
landfill. Second Harvest is currently working with Transport Canada and health authorities to 
collect surplus milk and other packaged food from Air Canada and Cara Foods. Organizations 
similar to Second Harvest are in operation in Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. 

Animal Feed 

Diversion of post industrial food waste to commercial manufacturers of animal feed has occurred 
for a number of years. Examples of indusunes which tend to carry out this practice include flour 
mills, and manufacturers of confections, bakery goods and cereals. Depending on the digestibility, 
available volumes and the nutrient levels of the waste product, the generators of the waste may 
receive revenue from the feed manufacturer, however, prices have fluctuated historically. 

Some packaging indusu^ culls and grocery store produce wastes generated primarily in the Golden 
Horseshoe area are currently being directly diverted for use as cattle and pig feed, although 
estimates of the amount diverted from the GTA are not available. Suppliers of this food waste 
typically do not receive any revenue for their material, and may even have to pay a nominal amount 
to cover u-ansportation costs. 

Agriculture Canada regulates the use of certain food wastes as animal feed, and requires that scraps 
be boiled before they are fed to swine or poultry. Swine feed must originate in the domestic IC&l 
sector, must not be rotten or moldy, and must be free of foreign materials (plastics, glass, knives, 
forks etc.) that might be injurious to the animal. Improper cooking of this waste can result in 
disease transmission between livestock and humans and among different types of livestock (such 
as salmonellosis) (Peer, 1992). 

Hy Hopes Farms in Ajax, Ontario, runs a swill feeding operation licensed by the federal 
government. For a fee, the owner of this hog farm collects about 135 tons of organic material for 
25 IC&I locations (including hospitals, restaurants, etc.) each week. Organic material is boiled 
and prepared according to government guidelines and is fed to the pigs (Bibb, Hy Hopes Farms, 
1993). 

Additional research is required to help build the necessary infrastructure, create stable markets, and 
to develop guidelines and standards (ie. nutrient value and contamination issues) regarding the 
suitability of certain foods for various livestock. However, expansion of this diversion alternative 
is also influenced by prices received by farmers for their livestock. 

Rendering 

Rendering is a long standing practice that involves cooking waste to remove moisture and separate 
fats and liquids from solids. The raw materials have until recently been primarily meat and meat 
by-products. Some rendering plants now accept restaurant food waste, production waste and other 
materials that may not be appropriate for any of the above uses. 

The process produces a stable, inert product. All types of organics can be accepted for rendering, 
(including breads, tissue etc.) although dry, high protein fat is preferred for rendering. End uses 
include oils (for use in soap, cosmetics, animal feed etc.) or glycerine, which is used for a range of 
products (including soaps, wet naps, crayons, shoe polish etc.) 

Approximately four renderers and an additional five "edible Tenderers" that render fats for the 
edible food business, operate in or near the GTA. Rothsay (formerly ORENCO) is the largest 
rendering company processing food waste from the GTA, with a plant located in Dundas, It 
processes approximately 40% of materials rendered in the area. If demand was adequate, 
ORENCO would be prepared to expand to three times its present capacity (Rusk, Rothsay). 

Costs of energy, transportation and a shift in eating habits have contributed to a stagnant, if not 
reduced demand for traditional rendering. End markets for animal feeds produced through the 
rendering process are dwindling, although Canada remains a net importer of proteins for animal 

May J 994 ^ '■ PageJu^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



feed. The costs of rendeinng are not competitive with cheaper forms of (lower quality) proteins 
such as soya meal. Renderers may pay from $0.13-$0.16/lb ($286 to $352/tonne) for "dry fat" 
but can charge from $80 16 $140/tonne to process other, lower quality materials (Rusk, Rothsay). 

Renderers will now consider all sources of food waste as possible feedstocks to their plants (which 
currently have excess capacity) because sources of their traditional feedstocks (meat and bones) are 
decreasing. Proteins rendered from food wastes can be used as a supplement in chicken feed, hog 
feed and beef feed. However, this is a low protein source, when compared with meat products 
and demand is not expected to increase dramatically within the near future. 

Off-site Composting of Food Waste rr ■ r 

Food waste can be source separated at the point of generation, and then taken off-site for 
composting in a centralized facility in either an open-windrow system or in an in-vessel system. 
Table H4.1 presents some food and yard waste processing facilities in the GTA. Municipal leaf 
and yard waste composting sites are not included in this table as they are discussed in Chapters 5 to 
9 of the Service Technical Appendix, Volume 1. Markets for finished compost produced by these 
methods are discussed in a later section. ' . 

Table H4.1 
Food and Yard Waste Processing Facilities in GTAI 



Facility 


::4p;IiOcati6n:: ■ . 


Capacity 

{tonnes/ 

yr) 2 


■"■ ■■■Prorcps- ■ : ■ 


Materials 

Accepted 


Comnient9 


Scott's 
Farms 


Haiton 


. 25,000 


• windrow 
composting 


• leaf and yard 
waste, some 
wood waste and 
limited paper 

• primarily IC&I 
witii some 
municipal/ 
residential 


• awaiting ^peal 
(August '93) of C 
of A to re-establish 
food waste 
composting 

• presently operating 
at one third 
capacity 


Al treat 


Orangeville 


• 50,000 


* composting 


• yard waste 
manure Filter 
cake 


• strictly IC&I waste 

• operating at less 
than 1/2 capacity 


George Sant 
& Sons 


York 
(Kleinburg) 


• 80 


• open windrow 
compost 


• leaves 


• wants to receive 
leaves from GTA 
municipalities 


Hy Hopes 
Farms 


Durtiam 
(Ajax) 


• 1.470 


• swill feed 


• food waste 

• hospitals, 
restaurants etc. 


• operating over 60 
years 


Banet 
Farms 


Durham 

(Brocddin) 


• 1,980 


• swill feed 


• Metro IC&I 




Rothsay 


•Dundas 


• 104,000 


• rendering 




• prepared to expand 
if demand and 
material is 
available 


Daily Bread 
Food Bank 


Toronto 


• not staled 

• can increase 


• human 
consumption 


• dry food 


• voluntary 


Second 
Harvest 


Metro 


• 450 


* human 
consumption 


• IC&I 


• acrfpted450 
tonnes in 1992 

• could expand if 
funds available 



May 1994 



Page H4A 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
• GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table H4.1 
Food and Yard Waste Processing Facilities in GTA (cont'd) 



PBOPOSED IC&I COMPOSTING FACH^ITIES 



Facitity 



SWEDA 
Fanns 



Metro 
Toronto 



Maminone 
Disposal 
System Lid.. 



Location 



EHjrfaam 
(Blackstock) 



Metro 



York 
(Maple) 



Capacity 
(tonnes/ 



72,000 



12,500 



15.000 



Process 



compost 



• in-vessel 
compost 



windrow 
composting 



"Materials 
Accepted 



• chicken manure 
(on-site, 
proposed 
leaves, grass, 
paper sludge 
etc. 



• OCC/wood 
waste/ yard 
waste, manure 

• from grocery 
and other IC&I 
sources 



PROPOSED MUNICIPAL COMPOSTING SITES 




Comments 



proposed 
expansion; 
presently operate 
indoor, tn-vessel 
process for organic 
feitiUzer 



• existing facility at 
Dufferin Tiansfo' 
Station 

• poposed Fairfield 
Digester use 



• operating in-vessel 
process since 1967 

• proposed upgrade - 
awaiting 
confinnatipn for 
expandedC of A 



Peel 



Halton 



69,000 



capacity not 
available 



* may be shared with 
Halton 



• may be shared with 
Peel 



1 . Municipal leaf and yard waste composting sites are described in chapters 5 to 9 of Service Appendix Volume 1 

2. Based on 250 day/year operatitKis 

Sources: Personal communications with industry contacts and municipal officials referenced at conclusion of chapter. 



Landspreading of Food Wastes • - . 

Application of some types of clean post^industrial food, yard and other organic waste is m the 
developing stages. Examples of these types of waste include: 

grape pressings and winery lees; 

wood pulp and paper processing wastes; , . 

food and canning industries' processing wastes; 

culled vegetables; ' - ■ \ 

leaves. , 

The major disadvantage of this method over other diversion alternatives, particularly centralized 
composting, is the inability to apply wastes to the land continually throughout the year. The 
Ministry of Environment and Energy recently released new guidelines for the land application of 
organic materials other than sewage sludge. Some changes in the new guidelines include lower 
limits for heavy metals, and restrictions regarding die proximity of landspreading facilities to other 
land uses. 

There are currently 12 farms licensed for land application in Ontario. Leaves collected in some 
municipalities in Halton Region, as well as chipped Christmas trees from the City of Brampton are 
being applied directly to agricultural land. These municipalities do not receive revenues for this 
May 1994 PageH4-5 



Ministry of Environmera and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



material. Instead, diversion through landspreading is viewed as a means of saving the costs 
associated with centralized composting activities. 

Home and IC&I On-Site Composting 

Home (backyard) and on-site composting provide a viable approach to management of organic 
wastes. Backyard composting is described fully in Schedule B of the Service Technical Appendix, 
Volume 2. 

Although not as prevalent as home composting, on-site management of food waste by IC&I 
generators, in particular institutions, is expanding. A number of manufacturers of home 
composting units have developed commercial sized units, more suitable for handling larger 
amounts of food wastes. Constraints to the expansion of this diversion alternative include lack of 
available space, purchase price of the units, and the level of ongoing maintenance that is required. 

Through the Ontario Green Workplace program, on-site demonstration projects were developed in 
1992 at eight government facilities. One of these facilities was the Mimico Correctional Centre. 
Mimico is testing one prototype in-vessel composting unit (the Ecolyzer) which is designed to 
accept up to 100 pounds of food waste per day, and to require as little as 15 minutes per day for 
ongoing maintenance. An in-vessel unit has also been installed at the Ontario Science Centre that 
will be capable of composting all of the food waste generated at the Centre as well as wastes from 
Queen's Park and the Legislative Building. 

T * 

H4.3 Markets and End Uses for Yard Waste 

Yard wastes refer to grass clippings, brush, leaves, trimmings and other organic landscaping 
wastes. It excludes tree trunks and cut lumber. 

The hierarchy for management of leaf and yard wastes is as follows: 

• source reduction; 

• direct use of landspreading or chipping; 

• composting. • 

Reduction ■ * ' 

Source reduction opportunities exist to encourage residents to reduce the amount of yard waste 
they generate. Public education plays a key role in all of these alternatives. 

Grasscycling, a waste reduction technique initially developed in Texas, involves leaving grass 
clippings on the lawn. Residents are educated on proper mowing, fertilizing and watering 
practices, through door-to-door distribution of information materials, radio and television ads, 
newspaper articles etc. In 1990, using the Texas program as a model, Montgomery County, 
Maryland was able to keep about 62% (25,0(X) tons) of all residential grass clippings out of the 
landfiU. 

The City of Waterioo has been promoting grasscycling since May 1991. In 1992, the City 
conducted a research project to identify the most effective ways to divert yard waste from landfill. 
The research showed that implementing an aggressive grasscycling promotion and education 
program was the most cost-effective way to divert grass clippings from landfill. Using volunteers 
to distribute educational material, the total cost of this form of reduction was estimated to be about 
$1 per household. The City estimated that through implementation of a grasscycling program, and 
a landfill ban on grass clippings, between $25,000 to $80,000 would be saved annually on tipping 
fees, garbage collection costs would be reduced, and between 5(X) and 975 tonnes of grass would 
be diverted each year from landfill (based on 475 kg of grass clippings per household per year) 
(City of Waterioo, March 1992). As a comparison, costs for providing separate collection for 

May 1994 ' " ' Page H4^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



grass clippings and for composting at a centralized facility were estimated to be approximately 
$140/tonne in the Region. 

One method to reduce the quantity of leaf and yard waste generation is to promote xeriscaping, 
which is lawn and garden design to minimize water and fertilizer use, utihzing plant species which 
generate very low waste quantities, sometimes due to slow growth rates. This is more applicable 
for new developments, and may suit the lifestyles of residents not interested in high maintenance 
lawns and gardens. 

Home and On-site Composting 

Home composting activity can divert significant quantities of leaf and yard waste. In some 
neighbourhoods, particularly those with mature trees and landscaping, one or two backyard 
composters may not provide adequate capacity for the leaf and yard waste generated. Depending 
on the size of the unit, on-site composting operations may be capable of handling all the leaf and 
yard waste generated by an IC&I establishment. Home and on-site composting requires the 
addition of carbonaceous material like leaves and small twigs to balance the high nitrogen levels 
typically found in residential food waste. 

Source Separated Leaves and Brush 

A few municipalities in the GTA arrange for nearby fanners to accept their fall leaves, for plowing 
into fallow fields. In addition, leaves are delivered by some municipalities to Scotts Farms, a 
private composting facility, where they are stored and used as a bulking agent for incoming loads 
of food wastes. 

Chipped brush and tree limbs are frequently used by centralized food waste composting facilities as 
an amendment material. While most centralized compost facilities charge a tipping fee for loads of 
organic waste entering their site, often the lipping fee for clean loads of wood chips is reduced to 
encourage deliveries. 

Centralized Composting 

Most source separated leaf and yard wastes which arc picked up in separate curbside collections are 
composted at open windrow facilities located in each GTA Region. Operation of these facilities is 
discussed in Chapters 5 to 9 of the Service Technical Appendix. 

H4.4 Markets for Compost 

Developing end uses for compost is a gradual long term task, that requires educating potential end 
users of the properties and qualities of the product and correspondingly, developing a product that 
suits the needs of potential end users (WRAC). The key to marketing organics is to produce a very 
high quality finished material; any below-standard material will be difficult to market, especially as 
availability increases (Taylor, June 1993). 

Compost produced in Ontario must be tested against the Ministry of Environment and Energy 
Interim Guidelines for the Production and Use of Aerobic Compost. (Ontario Ministry of the 
Environment, November 1991). These guidelines, which were adapted /rem the Ministry's 
standards for measuring metals in non-contaminated rural soils, arc generally perceived to be one 
of the most stringent in the world. The guidelines create two grades of finishfed compost The 
highest grade, referred to a "compost product," allows for unrestricted distribution of finished 
material. This grade would include compost that was suitable for sale (although it may be further 
regulated by the Federal Fertilizers Act), or lo be given away to homeowners. A second grade, 
"controlled compost", places restrictions on the sites where compost can be applied. Any material 
that exceeds the guidelines for controlled compost must be handled as a waste product. 



May 1994 PageH4-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Other parameters that end markets use to measure the quality of finished compost include: 

• soluble salts and sodium content; 

• stability; 

• C:N ratio; 

.. • available nutrient content; 

• particle size. 

High grade compost can command about $8/cubic yard or $5/lonne(Taylor, June 1992). Based on 
experiences of the Mississauga Composting Pilot Project, prices for finished compost will vary 
according to time of year, transportation costs and quality of the finished product. To date they 
have ranged from $4 to $15/cubic yard (Rivers. 1993). With the expansion of composting 
activities, it is anticipated that current prices will drop. However, experts predict that there will 
never be a time when generators will have to pay to get rid of high quality product (Taylor, June 
1993). 

Depending on whether chipped brush or other woody organics are mixed in the feedstock, 
compost product can be used as a mulch or as a substitute for peat moss, or other soil amending 
materials. To date, mulches have been more difficult to market than high quality leaf compost 
(Taylor, June 1993). An attempt was made during this study (Spring 1993) to contact landscaping 
and horticultural associations and other sources to identify quantities of composted material that are 
presently being utilized. The contacts were also asked to estimate future potential demand for 
finished compost. In many cases, this information was not possible to obtain. Some of the more 
common current and potential uses for GTA are described below. 

Municipal Public Worlcs and Paries and Recreation Departments 

Several of the municipal parks departments in the GTA have, for a number of years, been using 
fmished leaf compost , sometimes blended with topsoil, as top dressing for their lawns and flower 
beds. Information obtained through telephone conversations with some Parks Departments located 
within the GTA, indicated that demand exceeds current supply although specific figures were not 
available. Public Works Departments use finished compost as a substitute for topsoil, to repair 
excavations. , * 

For the above end uses, the compost manufacturer (in most cases, die municipality itself), receives 
no revenue for the finished product, however, compost may displace purchases of screened 
topsoil. Because records of where compost is actually used could be easily maintained, this type of 
end use may prove to be suitable for application of controlled compost. 

Private Landscapers and Developers 

Historically, landscapers and developers in the GTA have represented the largest purchasers of 
available high quality compost, for top dressing, mulch, and use as a soil amendment. This 
market is expected to improve, as the availability of topsoil decreases. 

Greenhouse and Potting Mixtures 

High quality compost can make up to 40% of the growing medium for plants. Of special concern 
however are the consistency of nutrient levels and soluble salt concentrations. (Bates, University 
of Guelph, 1991). AllTreat, a private composting operation located in Arthur, Ontario, currently 
produces specialized blends, some of which are designed to replace peat and composted manures. 
Various mixes are now being marketed to the public through grocery stores and garden centres. 
(Dempster, March 1993). , . 

Field Crops, Commercial- Fruits and Vegetables 

To date, in only a few instances, finished compost has been applied to producing agricultural land. 
However, it is by far the largest potential outlet for high quality product. While this potential outlet 

May 1994 ' Page H4-8 



Ministry of EnvironmerU and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Ajialvsis - Service Technical Appendix 



is not likely to pay high prices, it is capable of utilizing very large quantities if it is delivered and 
spread aino charge (Bates, 1991). 

If compost is used to top dress fields, a pH of 5.7 is required. Field crops are selected according 
to existing soil conditions, so it is essential that any top dressing of compost does not alter these 
conditions. 

Landnil Cover 

According to an American study team ( Buhr et al, January, 1993), landfill cover and surface mine 
reclamation provide an immediate use for municipal compost that can, in theory, be applied while 
other markets are being developed. These offer a potential stable market for low grade and non- 
uniform compost products. 

As presently planned, the proposed landfill sites in the three GTA service areas would not require 
compost, either as daily cover or for landfill capping (Alton, Fedec, Theodorolus, March, 1993). 
Thus, while landfill cover does provide a good potential end use for composted material, as 
presently planned, the IWA landfill sites do not anticipate any significant requirement for this 
material. 

Market Outlook for Organics 

The above section has described several possible end uses for organics (food and yard wastes) 
generated in the GTA. Some of these depend on composting of the organics, and the end uses 
available will depend on the quality of the finished compost. There appears to be adequate 
capacity to absorb high quality compost at prices varying from zero to $ 10/tonne. 

Lower quality compost has more limited applications such as landfill cover, or rehabilitation of 
areas not intended for residential development. Again there is likely to be adequate capacity to 
absorb this material at zero revenue. The costs of transportation may have to be absorbed by the 
compost generator. The higher uses of organics should be explored prior to directing food or yard 
waste to centralized composting or anaerobic digestion. These include re-distribution of food 
waste, or landspreading of food wastes and leaves, where viable. 



May 1994 PageH4-9 



Ministry of Environmetu and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H5.0 MARKETS FOR METALS 

H5.1 Steel 

Definition 

Tinplate steel is a ferrous metal commonly found in the residential and IC&I waste stream. 
This includes food and beverage cans, aerosol containers and paint cans. Post-industrial and 
post-use forms of ferrous metal include heavy industrial scrap metal (steel supports and 
reinforcement bars), automobiles and durable household appliances. Reprocessed steel may 
be utilized in, but is not restricted to closed loop recycling. 

Current Steel Markets Overview 

The demand and end market capacity for recycled tinplate steel is well-established in the GTA 
CSCRC (Canadian Steel Can Recycling Council) acts as an umbrella organization for Ontario 
steehnakers. Demand for tinplate steel, by (CSCRC) members and Metals Recovery Inc. 
(MRI) (a major processor that receives tinplate steel, separates the materials and markets the tin 
and steel) outpaces supply. 

MRI/Philip Environmental is a major end market for secondary tinplate steel located near the 
GTA (in Hamilton, Ontario). Although MRI is not a steel manufacturer, the company de-tins 
steel, and markets both the recovered steel and tin. MRI and CSCRC both state that the market 
will be able to absorb any new supplies of cans which might become available from IC&l 
programs, and increased consumer participation in residential recycling programs. 

Recycled steel food and beverage cans are melted with other scrap metals and used for a variety 
of applications, such as in the production of flat-rolled steel and reinforcing bars. Tinplate steel 
may be marketed to either of steel mills, detinning operations or iron and steel foundries. In 
these processes, cans may be either mixed with other scrap to form a scrap charge (which is 
mixed with virgin ore in blast or arc furnaces to form new steel products), de-tinned for tin- 
ingots and steel or simply flattened and baled prior to sale. 

De-tinning operations extract tinplate coating from the steel. The coating is sold to the tin 
industry and detinned steel is sold to the steel industry. Iron and steel foundries generally use 
30% to 40% scrap steel mix in the fabrication of cast and molded parts for industrial uses. An 
estimated 10% will derive from post-consumer sources (Moorc Dofasco, 1993). 

The Canadian Steel Can Recycling Council acts as an umbrella organizatioji for Ontario 
steelmakers. Key markets include Sielco and Dofasco in Ontario. Another portion of Ontario 
steel is currently exported to mills in the U.S., due to the prices paid. 

The market for tinplate steel has been stable, with ample market capacity provided by the steel 
mills. Steel production is affected by the overall level of economic activity especially in the 
automotive, construction and transportation sectors. The amount of steel available for recovery 
through recycling programs is likely to change after the spring of 1994, when Pepsi Cola Can 
Ltd, Coca Cola Ltd. and Cott Beverage will begin packaging soft drinks in aluminum, causing 
a reduction in the volume of steel cans available for recycling. 

Tinplate Steel Prices 

CSCRC reports prices of approximately $75/tonne for loose or baled cans, and approximately 
$95/tonne for cans that are densified to end market specifications (Paulowich, CSCRC). 
Prices are guaranteed by Stelco and Dofasco. (MRI did not wish to discuss prices paid for 
metal cans). 

Market prices were not available at the time of writing for other forms of steel scrap. 

However, sources report that no significant changes in pricing are foreseen at this time. 

May 1994 ^'^~_ [ PageH5-l 



■ Ministry of En vironment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Diversion Trends 

Recycling of tinplate steel continues to rise in North America as greater numbers of consumers 
gain access to depot and curbside recycling programs. For example, in Ontario the steel can 
recycling rate is estimated at 70%. 

Source reduction has been accomplished through lightweighting efforts on the part of steel can 
manufacturers. Steel cans have been reduced in weight by 30% in the last few years. Further 
reductions are not anticipated. The Canadian Steel Can Recycling Council has. estimated a 
current post-consumer steel content of tinplate steel cans at 10%, with an anticipated upper limit 
of 25-35%. 

CSCRC is developing a test project currently with the Canadian Aerosol Bureau and with one 
Ontario community to recycle aerosol and paint cans in the Blue Box program. The council is 
presently developing a workplan for collection, anticipating results by late spring, 1994. The 
intent of this research is to develop full-scale recycling for other small to medium sized Ontario 
communities (Paulowich, CSCRC, February 1994). 

The CSCRC reported die following approximate tonnages received for recycling: 



wmmmm§^ta 


Steel Cans ReceivMC^^ 


iliiiiliiiliii . 


UU 


2,900 




1987 


4,400 




1988 


9.900 




1989 


16,300 




1990 


25.800 




1991 


47,200 {CSCRC estimated an additional 7,300 


tonnes of 




cans were exported, and Algoma Steel 


received 




approximately 600 tonnes) 




1992 


67.100 




1993 estimate 


,8 1 .600 (projected target) 





MRI did not provide recycled tonnages available, due to confidentiality concerns. 

Future Mariiet Trends for Steel 

Demand for steel for re-manufacturing new steel products is expected to remain strong. 
Opportunities for local market development using secondary tinplate are limited. No new uses 
for recycled ferrous metal are foreseen at this time. » 

Market Outlook for GTA Generated Tinplate Steel 

It is anticipated that sufficient capacity exists within local mills to absorb any increases in GTA 

recovery of secondary steel. 

H5.2 Markets for Aluminum 

Introduction 

Aluminum in the waste stream consists of both consumer and industrial products. The intrinsic 
high value of aluminum has always created a demand for the metal. The recycling 
infrastructure for each type of aluminum product is different. For that reason this summary of 
aluminum discusses recycling of consumer products and industrial aluminum products 
separately. 



A4ay 1994 



Page H5-2 



Ministry of Environmenl and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Definition ■ ,• . j a i 

Recycling of scrap aluminum (i.e. industrial aluminum) is a well-established practice. A large 
portion of secondary aluminum is generated directly through the IC&I sector. Post-use 
industrial products such as aluminum building products, automotive parts, trailers, aeronautical 
parts, roadsigns and supports have also been reprocessed. Consumer products that consist 
primarily of beverage cans with some aerosol cans and rigid and flexible products such as pie 
plates and foil wrap also provide feedstocks for aluminum recycling. Additional sources of 
aluminum is also generated in the residential sector include aluminum siding, lawn chairs and 
barbecues. 

Current Market Overview for Aluminum Used Beverage Containers 

The generation of aluminum beverage cans in Ontario from soft drink, domestic and imported 
beer is estimated at 13.700 tonnes. A smaller, but unknown quantity of juices, imported 
beverages and aluminum food cans are also generated (Confidential Client), The primary 
market for aluminum beverage cans is Alcan Recycling in Brampton. In 1991, Alcan handled 
91% of the recycled aluminum cans collected in Ontario. Aluminum cans are processed into 
bales which are transported to one of Alcan's re-processing facilities in Oswego, New York or 
Berea, Kentucky for melting into aluminum ingots from which aluminum can sheet is 
produced. The rolled can sheet is used for producing new beverage cans. 

Material Recovery Industries (MRI) in Hamilton accepts mixed loads of steel and aluminum 
cans. MRI (owned by Philips Environmental) separates the steel from the aluminum and ships 
the materials to market. MRI sells the recovered aluminum to Alcan and other United States 
markets. " Quantities handled and prices paid were not available from MRL 

Aluminum cans are collected in all GTA curbside recycling programs. Most aluminum cans 
recovered in the GTA are exported to the United States for reprocessing into can sheet. The 
primary American markets include Reynolds Aluminum, Golden Recycling, Anheuser-Busch 
and Connecticut Metals (Confidential Client). The volume of aluminum cans collected is 
expected to increase as the transition from steel to aluminum soft drink cans is made by the 
major soft drink companies in the province (Malone, Alcan, 1994). The increase is likely to be 
seen by late 1994. 

Within the GTA, aluminum foil is only collected through the curbside collection in 
Mississauga. The generation of aluminum foil products in Ontario is estimated at 4,700 
tonnes. An estimated 7.5 million units or 300 tonnes of aluminum aerosol products are also 
consumed in Ontario (Confidential industry representative, .1993). Aluminum foil 
specifications require that foil and rigid containers consist of clean, old, pure, uncoated, 
unalloyed aluminum. The aluminum foil and rigid containers should be free of leftover food 
and anodized foil, radar foil, paper, plastics or any other foreign materials. 

Metro municipalities are planning to add foil to programs within the next year. Alcan and 
Metro Toronto are sponsoring an aluminum foil recovery program through "Meals on Wheels'*. 
Foil that is collected in the GTA is currently sent to the Alcan plant in Guelph. 

Specifications for scrap aluminum vary from market to market and depend on the type of 
aluminum alloy purchased. For example, used beverage container material must be 
magnetically separated and free of steel cans, tramp iron, lead, bottle caps, plastics, 
oxidization, sand, paper, glass, wood, dirt, grease, trash and other foreign substances. Baling 
and densification of aluminum cans is acceptable. Bale densities are between 14 to 22 lbs. per 
cubic foot with a minimum bale size of 30 cubic feet. Densified aluminum can biscuits should 
have a density between 30 to 45 lbs. per cubic foot and be of a uniforai size (Alcan Recycling, 
April 1991). , 

May 1994 ~ '. PageH5-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Aluminum products such as aerosol cans and tubes have not been collected through curbside or 
IC&I recycling programs due lo concern about volatile products and potential a dangers to 
collection workers. However, they are included in several hazardous waste drop-off programs 
in the GTA. 

Current Aluminum Market Overview for Non-UBC Material 

Aluminum is utilized extensively in the automotive industry (bumpers, transmissions, 
radiators, pistons etc.). electrical industry, u-ansportation sector (tractor trailers, truck and bus 
paneling etc.), building products (siding, doors, windows, eavestrove etc.), aircraft industry 
(aircraft fuselage and parts), recreational uses (lawn chairs, barbecues, slides etc.) and the 
majority of roadsigns and supports. 

Most of the applications are durable goods that do not become waste for years to come. A 
wide range of aluminum applications are small components of larger manufactured items. For 
example, the average car has 66 kilograms of aluminum (Fuller, Wabash Alloy Ontario 1993). 

The majority of scrap aluminum is generated in the IC&I sector, either as post industrial trim 
or, to a lesser extent, as post-use products. Only a small portion of aluminum scrap 
(approximately 2%) is generated in the residential sector (Lobel. House of Metals). Post 
industrial aluminum is generally sold to a dealer who may sort and bale the material for 
transport to the end market. The majority of post-consumer scrap is also sold through scrap 
dealers to brokers (in many cases by-passing developing municipal recovery programs). End 
markets smeit the materia! according to grade, and reprocess it as an alloy or as aluminum 
sheeting. • , 

There are three primary markets for scrap aluminum collected in the GTA which include 
Wabush Alloys Ontario in Toronto, Federator Genco in Hamilton and Alcan Ingot Alloys in 
Guetph. These are aluminum smelters which produce aluminum ingots and molten aluminum 
for manufacturing applications such as the automotive sector. The Alcan plant repre^ntative 
reported that this facility is presently operating near capacity (Dalla Via, Alcan). 

Wabush indicated that the majority of scrap aluminum recovered is sold to manufacturers 
within Ontario. However, some brokers now favour American markets because they pay 
higher prices for the material. A large portion (reported between 75% and 99%) of Ontario and 
GTA material is sold by some brokers to companies such as Reynolds, Alcan and MRI, in the 
United States. One large dealer revealed that for the first time this year, it will sell material to 
the US to avoid the onerous processing requirements of its previous Canadian end market. 

Aluminum Prices 

As a world commodity, the price for secondary aluminum varies according to demand pnce 
and availability of primary aluminum on world markets. Primary aluminum is used for higher 
value applications and secondary aluminum cans are used for can sheet production. When 
demand for primary ingot declines and prices fall, aluminum can prices must fall as well to stay 
economically viable. Conversely, when primary ingot prices rise, can prices must rise to keep 
cans from being used in secondary smelters as a substitute for lower grade scrap aluminum 
such as siding. 

In 1992, the price for aluminum cans varied from $770 to $l,100/tonne, and currently stand at 
$792/tonne. Over the past Tive years, the price for aluminum cans has risen as high as 
$l,750/tonne and dropped as low as $500/tonne (Shah, Alcan). Prices for aluminum cans 
were reported at approximately 41? (U.S.) per pound (approximately $900 per tonne) in 
February, 1994. Aluminum foil prices paid by Alcan Recycling currently range between $330 
and $396/tonne (Fuller, Wabash Alloy Ontario). 

May 1994 '^ PageHSJ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The value of aluminum scrap offered by metal dealers in and around the GTA varies depending 
upon the type of alloy as well as the quantity and quality of aluminum being purchased. Scrap 
is graded, with post consumer at the low end of value and post industrial at the high end. 
Prices reported range from a low of $640/tonne to a high of $1.210/tonne (Representatives of 
Canadian Smellers and Dealers). As a general rule, scrap aluminum prices are slightly lower 
than aluminum can prices. 

Aluminum scrap value has also been affected by a woridwide oversupply of aluminum (the 
inventory of primary aluminum stands at 450.(XX) tonnes). An element of this problem 
concerns Russian exports of primary aluminum which have been flooding worid markets and 
reducing prices (which reflects in limited markets for recycled or any aluminum). An 
agreement reached in December 1993 between Russia and western aluminum - producing 
nations will reduce capacity by implementing short term production cuts and restructuring 
Russia's .aluminum industry. As countries continue to reduce aluminum production (as 
committed in November, 1993), worid supplies, and hence, prices are considered likely to 
stabilize (Globe and Mail, March, 1994). 

Through research and development, the aluminum industry has reduced the weight of the 
aluminum beverage can by 13% since 1982. Aluminum is now commonly substituted for 
heavier materials such as steel in cars. 

Reuse 

There arc currently no common reuse applications for aluminum products. Due to the wide 
diversity of applications for aluminum, reuse will apply only to certain selected items such as 
siding, window frames, doors and road signs. * 

Rccvcle 

Alcan has committed to recycling every kilogram of aluminum cans that is recovered. The 
value of aluminum scrap will always ensure a strong demand for the material. Problems arise, 
however, if the aluminum can not be economically source separated or recovered from 
manufactured items such as electrical parts. 

Used Beverage Cans Diverted 

Alcan Recycling acts as the processor for all aluminum beer cans collected through the 
Brewers' Retail. Approximately 80% of all aluminum cans handled by Alcan is from the 
Brewers' Retail. Alcan also receives the majority of aluminum cans collected through 
municipal curbside recycling programs, plus cans that are collected by social institutions (e.g. 
schools) or private companies (e.g. private recyclers). 

The total quantity of aluminum cans recovered in Ontario in 1992 was 6,510 tonnes. Alcan 
recovered 4,954 tonnes while all other sources handled 1,556 tonnes (Confidential Client, 
1993). 

The industry has claimed that the provincial tax on aluminum beer cans has reduced beer can 
sales by 40% in Ontario. As a result, it is anticipated that recovery will have declined in 1992 
and for the foreseeable future. 

Other (non-can) Aluminum Diverted ^^ 

Wabush reports its annual intake of scrap aluminum at approximately 41,000 tonnes per year 
(Fuller, Wabash Alloy Ontario). Wabush collects scrap aluminum from selected generators 
such as McDonnell Douglas. Wabush also purchases aluminum from a network of scrap metal 
dealers, such as Triple M and Waxman Recycling, as well as several demolition firms. 



May 1994 PageH5'5 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Federated Genco purchases scrap aluminum from the GTA (and other areas) for melting and 
production of aluminum ingots. The volumes handled by Federated were not available from 
the company's representative. 

Alcan, Guelph processes approximately 72,000 tonnes/month for the production of foundry 
alloys for items such as automotive casting. Aluminum foil is also melted into aluminum 
ingots at the Alcan facility in Guelph. This company was unable to estimate the percent of the 
material they receive that would have been generated in the GTA. 

Future Market Trends for Aluminum 

Prices for aluminum are volatile, but are presently beginning to rise again after a brief slump. 
One broker reported a 25% increase in demand for scrap aluminum, while another reported 
operating at 50% capacity, with serious concern for the future. The key lies in providing high 
grade materials and operating in a healthy economy in general. For instance, since the scrap 
smelters in Ontario are closely tied with the automotive indusU7 (Wabush indicated that 80% of 
aluminum produced by the company is sold to the automotive sector) the continued strength of 
secondary aluminum markets will be heavily dependent on this up^uieam markeL 

Aluminum is a highly valuable metal which is traded throughout world commodities markets. 
The inherent value of aluminum ensures that there will always be a strong demand for 
aluminum cans and other aluminum scrap products. End markets including aluminum can 
sheet manufacturers and secondary aluminum smelters will continue to exist. 

Indusuial and manufacturing applications for aluminum are extensive. Because of this, it is 
anticipated that aluminum will be used in more applications in the future for its light weight and 
non-corrosive properties! - . 

Market Outlook for GTA Generated Aluminum 

Given that several brokers are presently selling aluminum scrap to American processors in the 
U.S., it is predicted that there will be adequate capacity in local mills to service the GTA market 
for the foreseeable future. 

H5.3 White Goods 

Definition 

White goods consist of metal household and industrial appliances such as refrigerators, 
freezers, stoves etc. They are often composed of a mix of materials and may require additional 
pre-processing prior to marketing to end-users. 

Current Wlilte Goods Markets Overview " ' ' 

In the GTA, the white goods recycling industry is dominated by three companies including 
International Iron & Metal Inc. (Hamilton), l.Waxman & Sons (Hamilton), and Inland Iron & 
Metal (Georgina). A number of metal shredders in GTA also accept white goods. The 
shredding indusU7 has a capacity to accept significantly more white goods than are currently in 
supply. 

Most residents in the GTA are provided with some form of curbside collection of white goods. 
For those households without curbside service, a drop-off service is available. Scrap metals 
are usually stored at landfills before they are taken to scrap dealers for shredding and recycling 
without salvaging parts or recovering CFCs or capacitors. The steel industry then incorporates 
the material back into steel products. 

A network of several scrap dealers reuse and recycle GTA while goods. P&F Technologies, 
Brampton, and D.S. Fraser, Oakville are specialized private collectors and appliance trade-in 
centres that recover CFCs. Brampton, Eiobicoke, Mis tissauga and Richmond Hill recover 
May 1994 ~ PageHS^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



CFCs and/or compressor oil before sending the while goods to the scrap dealers. Other 
municipalities store white goods without processing until scrap dealers collect the material. 

Scrap dealers prefer white goods that are free of CFCs or capacitors which may contaminate 
metal shredder fluff. The fluff is a by-product of the metal shredding process of recycling 
white goods. It is considered a valuable material in some regions in North America for use as 
landfill cover. Some concerns have been raised about the potential presence of PCBs in some 
capacitors which are shredded along widi the white goods. (CH2M Hill, 1990) 

White Goods Prices 

The price paid for white goods varies. Some depots in the GTA will accept white goods at no 
charge although most charge a tipping fee. 

The shredding industry pays between $30-$50 per tonne (including collection) for white goods 
without compressors. 

Reduction 

The New Inorganic Materials Science (NIMS), was recently developed for use as a filler, 
reducing the overall proportion of metallic materials in household appliances produced in 1989 
(CH2M Hill. 1990). When these appliances enter the waste stream in years to come, the 
overall tonnages of while goods may decrease along with the metallic content. 

Reuse _ 

White goods are reused both formally and informally by various groups within the GTA. 
Exchange days or community garage sales in East York and Richmond Hill allow residents to 
reuse white goods, regardless of condition. Service organizations (eg. Goodwill and the 
Salvation Army) accept white goods in good condition for resale. Private salvage yards repair 
appliances with minor problems for resale and the others are stripped down for parts. The 
remaining scrap is then sent to a shredder for metal recycling. 

Recycling 

Within the GTA, Halton and York Regions and Metro Toronto have imposed landfill bans on 
white goods. Most municipalities in the GTA offer curbside collection with access to a drop- 
off service, while others provide access to drop-off facilities at depot sites. 

The use of PCBs ceased in 1977 and over half the white goods with capacitors have been 
disposed (CH2M Hill, 1990). As a result white goods available for disposal and with the 
potential to contain PCBs will decline in the future. This will diminish concerns of metal 
shredders regarding recycling of white goods. 

Quantities of White Goods Diverted 

In 1990, an estimated 25% (22,000 tonnes) of white goods were processed by the Ontario 
shredders with the rest being landfilled. stockpiled or recycled using baling processes (CH2M 
. Hill, 1990). 

For municipalities in the GTA able to quantify this information (i.e. Halton Region, Brampton, 
Mississauga, East York, York, Etobicoke and Richmond Hill) a reported 3,340 tonnes of 
white goods were diverted in 1992 (AMRC, 1993). 

H5.4 Current and Future Market Trends for White Goods 

In Ontario, about 95,000 tonnes of white goods are available for disposal each year (CH2M 
Hill. 1990). Of this material, 82% (77,000 tonnes) can be recovered as scrap ferrous metal, 
4.6% non-ferrous metals, and the remainder includes glass, plastic, rubber, etc. 

May 1994 ,. Page H5-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The capacity of Ontario's metal shredding industry was 900,000 tonnes in 1990, of which 
10%-20% can be appliances and other scrap metal (CH2M Hill, 1990). Therefore, 90,000- 
180,000 tonnes of scrap metal capacity is available for processing appliances and other scrap 
metal. 

Market Outlook for GTA Generated White Goods 

Based on the above discussion, it is anticipated that recycling capacity will always be available 
for whatever white goods are generated and recovered in GTA. 



May 1994 PageH5'8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H6.0 MARKETS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE 

H6.i Introduction 

Four major industry sectors generate C&D wastes. These include the building construction, 
renovation, demolition and road construction industries. In the past, construction/demolition 
wastes were accepted in most landfills due to their relatively inert properties and suitable fill 
characteristics. One study estimated that C&D wastes are a major contributor to the overall 
volume of waste disposed in landfills, and contribute up to an estimated 25% by weight of the 
waste stream. Over the years, many landfill operators and environmental advocates have begun 
to recognize the inherent benefits associated with diverting C&D waste from landfills 
(Donovan, August 1991). 

Several factors have contributed to the reduction in C&D wastes processed in Canadian cities, 
particularly the Greater Toronto Area, including: 

• decrease in C&D activity due to poor economic conditions; 

• significant increase in the volume of C&D wastes exported for landfill; and 

• diversion of banned materials (i.e. wood, drywall, OCC, nibble, metals etc.) 
through the existing recycling infrasuucture (MacViro, 1992). 

C&D materials, particularly wood waste, drywall, metal, cardboard, and rubble offer good 
potential for recycling. Problems associated with recycling of C&D wastes occur when 
hazardous contaminants are mixed in with the recycling stream. Hazardous contaminants 
include, but are not limited to, asbestos, pressure treated lumber, oil-based paint, and wood 
treated with creosote (SENES, 1993, Donovan Associates Inc., 1990). 

DefinUion 

The consuiiction and demolition (C&D) waste su-eam is defined as all waste resulting from the 
construction, renovation and demolition of buildings, roads, bridges and all other structures. 
The construction waste stream is a mixture of materials including wood, drywall, metals, 
plastics, asphalt shingles, bricks and cardboard. 

A study conducted for Metropolitan Toronto (Proctor and Redfern, and SENES 1991) 
examined waste generated by the construction and demolition sector. As shown in Table H6.1, 
wood waste constitutes over half of the waste stream in the construction/demolition sector with 
wood, aggregate, and building materials comprising the majority of waste stream in the 
renovation sector. Building materials include drywall, shingles, plaster, ceiling tile, electrical 
wire and insulation. 



May 1994 PageH6-l 



Ministry of Environmem and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table H6.1 
Estimated Composition of Construction, Demolition and Renovation Waste 



lili Waste Materials 


Coii^tructlon : 


Demolition 


Renovntlon 




i%) 


(%) 


(%) 


Wood 


31.4 


51.8 


28.0 


Ferrous Metal 


8.8 


4.7 


5.5 


Non-Ferrous Metal 


0.4 


0.5 




Plastic 


3.2 


0.7 


2.4 


Glass ' 


4.2 




1.4 


Paper 


5.1 


0.4 


1.9 


Paperboard 


6.6 


0.3 


1.6 


Building Materials 


17.9 


7.9 


21.2 


Aggregate 


19.9 


24.7 


36.0 


Textiles/Rubber/Leather 


3.4 


0.3 


1.6 


Fines 




8.7 




Special 






0.3 


(Proctor and Redfem and SENES, 1991) 



Not only do the types and proportions of waste materials vary among the construction, 
demolition, and renovation sectors, but the amount of waste also varies. The Toronto Home 
Builders' Association estimates that the quantity of waste generated from renovation activities 
surpasses the quantity of waste generated by new construction activities by a factor of four. 

Generation of Construction and Demolition Wastes in the GTA 

C&D waste is generated from several different sources, some of which include: 

• road and bridge consuniction and repair; 

• landclearing; 

• excavation; 

• residential construction, demolition and renovation; 

• commercial or industrial construction, demolition and renovation. 

Because the activities undertaken vary, the quantity, composition and quality of waste materials 
change. For example, where landclearing activities will generate tires and, stumps (largely 
organic materials), renovation activities generate all types of materials (tiles, blocks, materials, 
wood, etc.) much of which may be contaminated. These differences have a significant impact 
on the ability to successfully market the materials thai are salvaged for diversion. 

H6.2 Industry Overview 

Construction, Demolition and Renovation Industry 

The construction industry involves the developers, builders or general contractors and sub- 
contractors (trades) which construct residential, commercial and industrial buildings. The 
construction industry in the GTA is represented by the Toronto Construction Association and 
the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association which estimates that between 5,000 and 
10,000 contracting firms service the GTA. It is estimated that 60% to 70% of these firms are 
small with the number of employees ranging from 2 to 50 (MacViro, 1992). Unlike the 
construction and. renovation industries, the demolition industry servicing the GTA is dominated 
by a relatively small number of firms. The GTA is serviced by 4 to 5 main demolition 
companies with an additional 25 to 30 smaller firms. 



May 1994 



Pagem-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The renovation sector consists niostly of small to medium sized companies, with a large 
number of individual private contractors doing piece-meal work. The Greater Toronto Home 
Builders' Association estimates that approximately 10,000 licensed renovators operate in the 
GTA (MacViro, 1992). The number of licensed renovators tends to fluctuate with the 
buoyancy of the economy and the level of activity in the housing market. Renovation combines 
both construction and demolition activities. 

The C&D industry relies mostly on recycling activities, as opposed to reduction and reuse 
activities, to achieve diversion of their waste stream. To date, source reduction and reuse 
initiatives have not significantly contributed to overall waste diversion experienced within the 
industry (Toronto Construction News, Sept/Oct 1992). The majority of the waste stream 
consists of drywall, wood, paper (OCC) metal, cardboard, rubble (which may include brick 
masonry tile, concrete and excavated materials), and plastics. Many of these can be effectively 
recycled into other products; tile; concrete and excavated materials (MOEE, C&D Waste 
Reduction Strategy Team, October 1993). 

Table H6.2 highlights some typical waste materials found on a construction/demolition site and 
the typical opportunities for end use. 

The degree of separation of demolition wastes is dependent upon contract stipulations, the 
space available to source separate and the economics of recovering materials. At some 
projects, the buildings are basically stripped of recoverable metals, wood and bricfc/concrete. 
The residual materials (roofing, interiial walls, windows etc.) are then disposed as a niixed 
waste. If a projects calls for a building to be demolished quickly with litde opportunity to 
recover materials the waste rubble, wood, metals and other materials would be mixed and 
difficult to recover for diversion. 

Several barriers have, prevented widespread recycling and marketing of C&D materials, as 
identified in the Ontario C&D Waste Reduction Strategy team report (MOEE, 1993). Some of 
these include: 

• unpredictable material quality; 

• inconsistent volumes based on a seasonal industry; 

• lack of economic incentive or rationale; 

• lack of co-ordination of municipal requirements (landfill bans etc.) as well as some 
municipalities which prohibit use of various recycled materials; 

• job site constraints on source separation. 

On the other hand, landfill bans have encouraged diversion of homogeneous wastes generated 
by the C&D sector. Each of the GTA municipalities have imposed landfill disposal bans for 
wood, drywall and cardboard. As such, source separation of banned materials takes place at a 
number of construction sites. Over the years, C&D companies have achieved significant 
diversion of the quantity of waste going to landfill. Monarch Construction has achieved a 50% 
diversion of waste going to landfill through source separation and on-site reuse applications 
(Confidential source). 

The cost associated with waste disposal from renovation activities account for almost 10% of 
the overall costs incurred during the renovation (Globe and Mail, April 10, 1992). There is 
increasing interest and opportunity for the renovation industry to engage in reuse and recycling 
activities. Due to the small size of the operations, it is often difficult for renovators to secure 
markets for their recyclable wastes because relatively small amounts are generated at each 
specific site. The cumulative effect of renovation activities, however, is significanL 



May 1994 PageH6'3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table H6.2 
Typical C&D Waste Materials and Potential Uses 



|:|::|;|i -Waste Material 


Market 
Value 


End Use/Recycled Products mm 


gypsum wallboard 


low 


• new wallboard 
> soil amendment 
absorbent media 


bricks and blocks 


medium 


rtjadbase/backfUl 
decocative facades 


concrete 


medium 


crushed and scneened aggregate for 
— roadsubbase 




f) 


— shouldering aggregate 

— asphaltic concrete 


■ 




— conaete 

— cement blocks fill 


wood - untreated 


low 


chipped for 


■■' 


", >- 


— fuel 

— landscaping mulch 

— compost bulking 






— animal bedding 

— particle board 

— manufactured building products 

— pulp and paper 

— natural woodchips 

— timber 


wnnd-tieaied 


low 


same as untreated but potendally unacceptable 
per hazardous waste standards 


plastic (HOPE, LDPE, PS, ABS, 


medium 


• chipped/shredded and used to make insuladon 


PVC) 




• plastic lumber 


■ 




traffic cones 
highway barriers 


asphalt 


low 


crushed and mixed with new asphalt to make 


- shingles 




paving material for roads and tffidge resurfacing 


- road repair 




including: 

— hot mix , • 


i; 




— cold mix 

— mad subbase 

— shouldering aggregate 


OCC (including waxed 


medium 


• possible use as widi other IC&I OCC 


contaminated etc.) 






metals 


medium 


scrap 


glass 


iow 


fibreglass insulation, sandblast, reflective 




- 


beads, aggregate 


fibreglass 


low 


fibreglass 


other porcelain 


low 


aggregate 


caipet 


low 


landfill cover 


(Source: SENES, 1993, Donov^ 


Associates Inc. 1' 


JQOandCMHC, [nd-D 



The trend in processing recyclable C&D and renovation wastes is to coi:imingle them at the 
source (with separation from the non-recyclable fraction) and separate the commingled stream 
at a processing facility. While source separation of individual materials requires less processing 
resources and equipment, it does not necessarily maximize overall t^ecovery and recycling of 
the C&D waste stream. Commingled waste processing facilities increase the overaU amount of 
waste diverted from the C&D waste stream, if strict separation requirements are met 



Mav 1994 



Page H6^ 



Min istry of En vironmeru and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Contamination by hazardous materials continues to be a concern for C&D processors. 
Hazardous/special waste materials that may inadvertently enter the recycling stream include 
asbestos, mercury from electrical switches, and PCBs in fluorescent light ballasts 
manufactured before 1980. Other undesirable contaminants include pressure treated wood, and 
wood treated with creosote. . / 

There are currently eight facilities located in the GTA that accept mixed (commingled) C&D 
wastes for processing and several, both within and beyond GTA that accept separated materials 
for recycling or reuse. Each operation utilizes manual labour and light equipment (Bobcat with 
grapple) to separate recyclables from the mixed loads. Residual waste materials from these 
operations have been transferred to landfill sites in the United States until recently. Disposal 
may occur in GTA with the recent reduction in tipping fees to $50/tonne at landfill and 
$70/tonne at transfer stations (May. 1994). Table H6.3 identifies the eight commingled C&D 
processing companies located in the GTA, and describes the materials accepted. 

An additional four facilities in Ontario accept clean drywall, and limited drywall from 
demolition projects. These facilities are: 

• Canadian Gypsum Corp. (CGC) - end market capacity of 500 tonnes per year, 
accepts only clean drywall; 

• Domtar (Caledonia) - capacity of 3,600 to 4,800 tonnes per year, accepts only clean 
drywall; 

• New West Gypsum (processor) Westroc end market, (Mississauga) - capacity of 
26,000 tonnes per year, accept clean drywall and some drywall from demolition 
projects; 

• Terra Care(Elmira) - capacity of 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes per year, uses the material in 
the production of cat litter, (McCamley, New West Gypsom, Webber, CGC, 
Marty, Tema Cane). 

According to Ira Greenspoon of Canadian Eagle Recyclers, it is critical to maintain a clean 
supply of C&D waste with low levels on contaminants in order to ensure a healthy market. 
Furthermore, recycling must remain affordable for the C&D industry to keep separating the 
materials at the source and to keep the materials in Ontario (Toronto Construction News, 
Sept/Oct 1992). 

The Road Construction Industry 

The majority of road construction activity is tendered by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation 
or Municipal Public Works departments. Road construction and repair wastes are easily 
separated without contamination. Asphalt, concrete and metal wastes are easily segregated and 
sent to paving companies for reclamation as Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) (MacViro, 
1992). 



May 1994 Page H6-5 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table H6.3 
C&D Waste Processing Facilities in GTA 



^. '- Company 


Capacity 


Material 


Comments; 




(tonnes per 


Processed 






year) 






Greater Toronto Area 








Harkow Aggregates & 


150,000 


wood 


tipping fee $97 per tonne 


Recycling 




metal 


7-15% diversion (1993) 


Toronto 




OCC 




Canadian Eagle 


75.000 


wood 


. '■*■' 


Recyclers/Greenspoon 




drywall 




Demolition 




metal 




Markham 




OCC 
usedcapet 




Queensway Recycling 


not available 


mixed office 


tipping fee SI 10 per tcmne (1993) 


Etobicoke 


• ■ • 


paper 
OCC 
wood 


■■' 






drywall 




Teperman Demolilion 


not available 


brick 

concrete 

wood metals 




Ccmwaste Inc. 


not available 


wood 


manual separalion of nnaterials 


Brampton 




OCC 




Delsan Demolilion Lid. 


75,000 


wood 




Metro Toronto 


■ . 


metal 

brick 

concrele 




Hamilton 








Phillips Environmental 


42.000 


wood 


20% originates from ibe GTA 






OCC 


asphalt, concrete and bricks must 






metal 


arrive source separated 






asphalt 








concrete/ 






■ 


brick 




Laidlaw Waste Systems 


44,000 


wood 
OCC 


12% diversion rate achieved 


' 




drywall 
metals 




Lynch, Harkow Aggregates, M 


iuleman, Canadia 


n Eagle RecycK 


;rs, Teperman, Teperman Demolilion, 


Campbell, Conwasie Inc.. lane 


redi, Det.'ian Dem 


olition Ltd., Graham, Philips Environmental, Allison, | 


Laidlaw Waste Systems 






1 



The use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) is established in the GTA. An estimated 50% 
of the old asphalt is currently reused {MOEE, 1993). In 1990, it was reported that province- 
wide 1,222,000 tonnes of old asphalt was reused as hot-mix while a further 1,493,000 tonnes 
was stockpiled (MacViro, 1992). A total of 66 companies, province wide, recover and recycle 
asphah (MOEE, October 1993). 

In the GTA, 400.000 tonnes of asphalt processing capacity was identified, through a survey of 
recycling facilities conducted in 1992. The survey found that capacity could be expanded with 
multi-shift operations and that there appears to be sufficient capacity to process asphalt 
generated within the GTA (MacViro, 1992). Asphalt processing operations include companies 
such as Ambro Materials & Construction, D. Crupi & Sons, Fermar Asphalt, Ltd., Maple 
Paving, Miller Paving and Warren Bitulithic Paving. 



May 1994 



Page H6-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



While processing capacity is available for asphalt, major barriers to recycling this material 
currently exist and large quantities are being stockpiled since markets arc closely linked with 
the price of oil (MOEE. 1993). The Ontario Ministry of Transportation and municipalities have 
raised concerns about durability of paved surfaces containing RAP. RAP can represent up to 
25% of the material used in road base (HL8) material, but cannot be used in top layer pavement 
(HL3) (Sizer, City of Brampton). 

Aggregate Wastes . . , . „ l • • j-rr 

Handling and processing of aggregate (i.e., concrete, bnck), as well as asphalt is different 
from other C&D wastes. Aggregate and asphalt wastes traditionally have been source separated 
from mixed wastes and recovered. Concrete, concrete blocks and bricks are commonly reused 
as backfill material or sub-base material on the construction job sites, provided it passes a 
density test to determine its suitability (MOEE, 1994); According to MOEE. Ontario sources of 
aggregate are being depleted. Thus recycled aggregate from C&D projects would be likely to 
be marketable (MOEE, 1994, THBA, 1990). However, bricks contaminated with lead paint, 
or mixed with contaminated rubble are not currently marketable. Since refactory brick contains 
heavy metals, fluoride and other contaminants these also not marketable (MOEE, October, 
1993). 

The use of concrete rubble in lakefill applications is a significant landfill diversion practice 
within the GTA. Both the Toronto Harbor Commission (THC) and the Metropolitan Toronto 
and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) use earth fill, and small and large concrete 
pieces for erosion control and development of lakeside parks and marinas. In the three years 
from 1990 to 1992, the THC and MTRCA has used an average of 619,000 tonnes per year of 
used concrete material as lakefill. Lakefill applications are anticipated to be reduced 
significantly as some THC and MTRCA projects are nearing completion (Cowey, Metropolitan 
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority). 

H6.3 Prices 

In the past, prices charged for processing mixed C&D wastes were competitive with GTA 
landfill tipping fees ranging, from $97 to $1 10 per tonne for mixed loads of C&D waste 
arriving at the processing facilities. These have been comparable with prices charged by private 
waste hauling companies shipping wastes to the United States where hauling charges, 
including tipping fees, average $80 to SlOO/tonne. Recent changes to the tipping fee prices 
charged at Metropolitan Toronto landfills (reduced to $50) may impact the C&D recycling 
industry. However, continued diversion will be supported by the 3Rs regulations. 

All drywall processing facilities charge a fee to process used drywall, with the exception of 
Domtar which has an agreement with its hauler to share both costs and revenues from recycled 
drywall. Fees range from a low of $35/tonne at Terra Care, to a high of $60-70/tonne at CGC, 
with New West at $65/tonne (refer to Table H6.3 for sources). 

H6.4 Trends in C&D Waste Diversion 

Very few developments in the handling and diversion of C&D wastes have taken place in the 
GTA and none are. anticipated for the near future. This is primarily due to the lowering of 
tipping fees. Communications with recycling operators indicate that current tipping fees 
coupled with a volatile marketplace have hindered decisions to invest in new processing 
equipment or expansion plans to process C&D wastes. 



May 1994 ~ Page H6-7 



Minist ry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Legislation and Policies 

Several recent policy and legislative initiatives have been introduced with the intention of 
further promoting source reduction, reuse, recycling and market development of the C&D 
waste stream. 

In March, 1994, die Ontario 3Rs regulations were promulgated. These regulations require the 
following actions on construction and demolition projects of 2000 sq. m. or greater in floor 
area: 

• source separation of brick and Portland cement concrete, corrugated cardboard, 
wood, drywall and steel from construction projects; « , 

• brick and Portland cement concrete, wood and steel from demolition projects 
; (MOEE. 1994); and 

• development of a waste audit and waste reduction action plan. 

Currently, all Ontario government construction and renovation projects require that the 
contractors sort recyclable debris from non -recyclable debris and promote reuse of construction 
materials when applicable. The document outlining these waste minimization strategies, entiUed 
Environmentally Conscious Design for Ontario Government Buildings, provides direction for 
ensuring that waste reduction and recycling systems are built into die architectural designs and 
that waste diversion activities are actively pursued during construction and renovation. 

In January 1993, the Ontario Construction Industry announced its 3Rs Code of Practice which 
ouUines principles and initiatives for businesses to adopt to reduce waste sent to landfills. 

Increasingly, the construction and renovau'on industry is recognizing that opportunities exist to 
incorporate recycled content building materials into the construction and renovation of 
buildings. In 1991, the Greater Toronto Homebuilders' Association in association with 
ORTECH International constructed a "Green Dream Home" showcasing recycled content 
construction materials and internal furnishings. Increased awareness of recycled content 
building products will help to rejuvenate the end use market and create new demand for 
recycled materials (ORTECH. [n.d.]). 

Reduce and Reuse 

Source reduction at the construction site is a new concept that remains in the eariy stages of 
development. According the Toronto Home Builders' Association, however, there is good 
opportunity to reduce the amount of waste generated on a construction site. The Association 
found that 10 percent of all dimensional lumber used during construction of residential 
dwellings is wasted (THBA, 1990). In fact, during the construction of an average sized home, 
over 2.5 tonnes of new construction waste is generated (ORTECH, [n.d.]). 

Reuse, on the other hand, has attracted much attendon, particularly within the demolition and 
renovation industries. It is estimated that the amount of reusable materials generated from 
renovation and demolition projects is ten times that of recyclable materials generated from new 
construction. In response, a number of companies have been established as clearinghouses for 
reusable C&D materials. Materials such as windows, fixtures, lighting, and shelving, which 
traditionally have been treated as waste items during renovation and commercial leasehold 
improvement projects, can now be sent to reuse centres for resale. 

Two companies have been operating in Canada since 1989, The Reuze Centre in Toronto, 
Ontario and Envirocycle Expediting in Edmonton, Alberta. These companies not only sell 
reusable demolition materials at their facility but they offer pre-renovation audits to target and 

May 1994 ' Page H6-8 



Ministry of Environmenl and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



remove interior and exterior materials prior to renovation or demolition. In three years of 
operation, from 1989 to 1992, the Envirocycle Expediting centre diverted over 3,000 tonnes of 
reusable building materials worth $1.5 million at current retail replacement costs (Gerrand, 
1992). 

HacvcI-c 

The greatest opportunities for overall waste diversion remain in the area of recycling. While 
many of the recycling and end-use processes continue to be as they were in the mid to late 
1980s, some new opportunities for C&D recycling are currently being developed. 

Over time, advances in technology are likely- to continue to open markets for construction and 
demolition waste. For example, whereas asbestos and window glass had previously been 
considered un-recyclable, new markets have been developed to divert them from landfill. The 
MOEE construction and demolition strategy team study {Keeping C&D Materials out of 
Landfills) reports that asbestos can now be formed into a non hazardous fill material. Window 
glass can be recycled into fibreglass or ground into powder as a component of lime/silica 
bricks. Paint is also now recycled (MOEE, 1994). 

Contfactors/drywallers are also becoming more creative in attempting to dispose of off-cuts on- 
site, by saving pieces which would have once gone to disposal (e.g., large pieces from doors 
and' windows, etc.). Also, some off-cuts are built into interior wall cavities, not placed into 
dumpsters for disposal. A farmer in the Slate of Michigan is experimenting with the use of old 
wallboard as a lime substitute and soil conditioner. The gypsum wallboard is ground to a 
powder-like substance and then applied to the com field. 

The City of Brampton is conducting a test using a paving asphalt comprised of granulated 
discarded roofing shingles. The Granulated Bituminous Shingle Material (GBSM) is added to 
hot mix asphalt and was laid last September 1992. The GBSM is produced by IKO Industries 
and is comprised On waste shingles which arc shredded and the nails are removed (Sizer, City 
of Brampton). 

Technology has been developed to permit on-site recycling of pavement by heating, stripping, 
and mixing the asphalt in one continuous operation. The process can rejuvenate a road surface 
to its original state with the need to add nominal amounts of new aggregate and oil. 
Transportation of new and old materials from the site is thus eliminated. 

Market Outlook for C&D Materials 

Based on the above discussion, it appears that the pnvate sector is willing to construct 
additional facilities in GTA to divert C&D wastes, but will not do so as long as export to the 
U S or low tipping fees locally provide a more economical alternative for C&D waste 
generators. Finding constructive uses for all processed C&D materials will be supported by 
MOEE guidelines for beneficial uses such as lakefill, backfill, etc. Markets are growing and 
are likely to continue to expand. 



l^ayJ994 " ' Page H6^9 



Ministry of Environmeru and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H7.0 MARKETS FOR OTHER MATERIALS 
H7.1 Markets for Glass 

Introduction 

Consumers Glass in Etobicoke is the primary market for colour separated glass cuUet m 
Ontario. The primary end use for colour separated glass cullet is to remanufacture the glass 
into bottles and jars. Manufacturers of glass containers require stringent separation processes 
for glass. Currently, glass must be separated at the source into flint, green, and brown glass to 
ensure product quality. Due to the stringent specifications, effort has been spent to identify and 
develop alternative end-use markets for mixed glass cullet, including aggregate substitute, sand 
substitute for sandblasting, manufacture of fibreglass, manufacture of glass tiles, and the use 
of glass in asphalt. 

Definition , ,• . i j 

The glass industry is commonly separated into three segments: container glass (i.e. bottles and 
jars), flat glass (e.g. window glass), and pressed or blown glass (i.e. stained glass, glassware, 
etc.). . , 

Specifications for glass as secondary feedstock vary considerably among the manufacturing 
applications. Contaminants must be removed and the glass crushed to meet a range of 
specificau'ons in terms of cleanliness (the absence of contaminants such as bottle caps, labels 
and other non-glass materials) and coarseness (ranging from a fine powder to coarse glass 
chunks). 

Three colours of glass are commonly produced into bottles and jars. These are: 

• Rint glass commonly referred to as clear glass; 

• Light blue glass which is also called green glass; 

• Amber glass which is also called brown glass. 

The Generation of Recyclable Glass in the GTA j !/-> o t 

The main sources of scrap glass are post-consumer glass (i.e. from residential and IC&I 
locations) and pre-consumer glass ( i.e. from production processes). Over the years, the 
volume of post-consumer glass available on the market has increased substantially as more 
communities and IC&I generators implement recycling programs. 

Despite the effort to collect glass through the recycling programs, to date, the type of glass 
accepted in these programs has been restricted to glass containers. Other glass products, such 
as windows, mirrors, lightbulbs, and ornaments still remain in the waste stream. These 
materials cannot be easily incorporated into the end-use container manufacturing market due to 
the incompatible properties of the secondary feedstock. 

Table H7.1 shows the quantities of container glass recycled in Ontario from 1989 to 1992 
(Paradiso, Consumers Glass), and Blue Box material recovered in 1993 (Symington, 
Consumers Glass, 1993), 



May 1994 ~^ \ Page H7-I 



Ministry o/EnvironmerU and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table H7.1 
Quantities of Glass Recycled in Ontario 1989 to 1992 (tonnes) 



mm^mmmmm 


tn^ 


l^^A 


UH' 


i^n 


li^*3 


Oni. Blue 
Box programs. 


30,970 


57,541 


77,552 


81,128 


86,165 


IC&I 

(captive 
depot) 


5,798 


2,374 


3,382 


5,097 


n/a 


Consumers Glass 
Customers 


13,769 


14,444 


19,621 


33,754 


n/a 


U.S. (1) 


8.426 


2,628 


331 


— 


n/a 


Quebec (1) 


4,356 


5,275 


262 


— 


n/a 


Manitoba (1) 


.«„ 


— 


192 


54 


n/a 


TOTAL 


6i,il9 


62,162 


101,341 


120,034 


n/a 


(1) References: U.S., Quebec, 
curbside or residential. 


and Manitoba sources provide commercial cullet (not 



Consumers Glass estimates that 293,300 tonnes of glass cullet is available in Ontario, of which 
80% is residential, and 20% IC&I (Paradiso, Consumers Glass). 

Glass Recycling Industry Overview 

The majority of glass recovered in recycling programs is sent to Consumers Glass for 
manufacturing into recycled content glass bottles and containers. Consumers Glass has stated 
that there is a limit to the amount of cullet which they can liandle, but also note diat they have 
projections for increasingly adjusting capacity to handle increasing quantities of recycled glass. 

Consumers Glass requires glass containers to be sorted into two separate streams from the 
residential sector: 

• clear (may contain up to 5% light blue glass); 

• coloured (may contain up to 5% light blue glass and 5% flint; should not contain 
more than 5% amber) (Paradiso. Consumers Glass). 

Most of the amber coloured glass is collected through the deposit system which applies only to 
beer bottles sold in Ontario. In the past, contamination by colour and other materials has posed 
a problems for the glass manufacturing sector; however, the current acceptance rale for loads 
of recycled glass is 99.3%. 

Other companies in the IC&I sector must sort glass according to each colour category (clear, 
light blue/green, amber/brown). This situation is presenting difficult problems for large 
generators of recyclable glass, such as bottling companies, which must accommodate the 
additional storage space requirements to separate the three colours of glass. Smaller companies 
generally employ recycling firms that separate the commingled glass collected. 



May 1994 Page H7-2 



Min isiry of En vironment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Other end-uses for the glass cullet are being explored. For example, the Ontario Ministry of 
Transportation acknowledges that 5-10% crushed cullet can be used in granular 'B' subbase 
(crushed to 3/4") (Kennepohl. OMT). At this rate, the demand for recycled glass cullet could 
reach up to approximately 1,200 tonnes of crushed glass per mile of resurfaced road (Paradiso, 
Consumers Glass). To date, recycled glass has been used as an aggregate substitute by the 
following GTA municipalities: 



Meu-o Toronto; 
Region of Durham: 



5,000 tonnes/year; 

4,07 1 tonnes (all of the glass collected in 1992). 



A number of Northern Ontario municipalities are also exploring alternative uses for glass. 

Glass is also being used as an abrasive for cleaning or preparing surfaces for painting or 
treatment, replacing the chemicals and sand traditionally used for these purposes. Scrap 
container glass ground as a fine abrasive has proven just as effective with fewer problems for 
worker health. ' 

Prices 

The amount of glass cuUei purchased is conditional upon sales. Consumers Glass has 
experienced a loss of customers to American and Mexican glass producers. The range of 
prices paid for glass cullei over the past 3-4 years, by Consumers Glass is shown in Table 
H7.2. . . 

Table H7.2 

Prices Paid for Recycled Glass 1989-1993 

$/tonne (2,200 lbs) 



Flint 
(clear) 

Coloured 
(green) 

Mixed 



66-83* 

66-83 

$44 



^TWS" 



"fWT 



IWT 



wmm 



83-66 



83-66 



17-11 



66 



66 



11 



47 



42 



47 



41 



not accepted not accepted 



1. A $16/tonne premium was paid between October 1989 and Mar<?h 1990 to encourage 
colour sorting. 

Reference: Paradiso, Consumers Glass 



The prices paid for contaminant-free, colour sorted glass, are equivalent to the cost of using 
virgin materials for the production of glass containers. The higher prices paid prior to January 
1, 1992 were to assist the development of the recycling infrastructure. 

The current pricing of $47/tonne for flint and $42j'tonne for green (coloured) will continue to be 
paid until further notice. Consumers will provide a written 30 day notice to all recyclers prior 
to any price changes (Paradiso, Consumers Glass). 

Reduce 

Over the past several years, many bottle and container manufacturing companies have 

redesigned the walls of bottles and containers to reduce their weight and thickness. Added 

strength is achieved by using polystyrene wrap labels that fully encompass the side of the 

bottle. 



May J 994 



Page H7-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Consumers Glass reports that they continuously review the design of their glass containers in 
order to "right weight" them to use as little glass as possible, while still meeting their 
customers' requirements. 

Consumers Glass plans to reduce the weight of all glass container products by 10% on average 
between 1988 and the year 2000 (Paradiso, Consumers Glass). 

Reuse 

RefiUable glass containers have been used over the decades for numerous beverage products, 
including beer, carbonated drinks, and, to a lesser extent, milk. Due to the additional weight of 
the refiUable bottle (approximately 3 limes that of a non-refillable bottle) and the additional 
burden of transportation, the popularity of this reuse approach has decreased over the years. In 
addition, life cycle analysis studies have not to come to a consensus about the environmental 
and energy advantages and disadvantages associated with refiUable and non-refillable glass 
bottles. 



Recycle 

As the end-use markets develop, more glass manufactures have begun to increase the amount 
of recycled content in their glass bottles and containers. For example, the average recycled 
content of glass containers manufactured by Consumers Glass over a five year period from 
1988 to 1993 has increased substantially. The increases in the recycled content is presented in 
Table H7 .3 (Paradiso. Consumers Glass). 

Table H7.3 

Recycled Content of Glass Containers 

Manuractured by Consumers Glass, 1988 to 1993 



vmMm:M:Ym::.:- :' 


Recycled 


Tonnes M Recycled 


%:^^:mmmmmmmBi::::-:^^:-. 


Content 


Glass Used 


mi 


1% 


18,350 


1989 


13% 


36,770 


1990 


23% 


61,730 


1991 


29% . 


80,930 


1992 


32% 


■ 86,230 


1993 (planned) 


35% 


90,700 



Other potential end-use markets for glass, particulariy the aggregate industry, are not as 
securely established as the glass container manufacturing industry. The use of crushed glass as 
an aggregate substitute in Ontario will not provide a secure market until a decision is reached 
about its use and the specifications required. The province of Ontario has not developed 
specifications governing the use of glass as an aggregate substitute in Ontario. While the 
Region of Durham is currently experiencing no problems with this use, this is presently a 
concern for Metro Toronto (Crowley, Durham Region, and Pollack, Metro Toronto). 

Other end-use markets being developed include the use of recycled glass cullet in the 
manufacturing of fibreglass. Some existing manufacturers have been successful in using 
container and plate cullet in the production of glass fibre insulation. This option has become 
popular in the Western Provinces; for example, the province of Alberta uses nearly 10,0(X) 
tonnes/year of glass in the production of fibreglass. 

The use of glass in the production of asphalt offers a potential long-term market for recycled 
mixed glass. The process of "glassphalt" involves using processed glass as an aggregate 
substitute for stone or sand in the surface layer of roadways. The process has the potential to 
consume 60 tonnes of cullet per lane-mile of road construction. Material contamination poses 



May 1994 



PageH7-4 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



few problems in this process although there is a slight tendency for reduced traction at speeds 
over 80 km/hr. 

Insulation provides another potential end market for recovered glass. In the U.S., 
approximately 272,000 tonnes recycled glass were used in the production of thermal and 
acoustical insulation products {Resource Recy(:ling, December, 1993). 

In addition, geotextile sleeves filled with crushed glass can be used to replace perforated plastic 
pipe for various drainage applications such as road underdrain, building foundations, and 
parking lots. The feedstock is mixed cullet, including container cullet, plate glass and 
ceramics. The sleeves can also be used to control erosion and have the advantage of being 
reusable. ... 

Post-consumer glass also can be pressed or blown into new glass products (other than 
containers) such as tiles, figurines, bowls, and other glassware. Glass reprocessing of this 
nature is generally considered a form of specialty production that provides local market 
opportunities, but does not represent an outlet for large quantities of waste glass. 

Elsewhere, research is being undertaken to identify recycling opportunities for light bulbs and 
other glass lighting products. The Canadian Electrical Association has embarked on a project 
to identify end-use markets and collection opportunities throughout Canada. 

Market Outlook for Glass 

Glass collection has become a well established part of most recycling programs. However, 
handling and sorting of glass is problematic at MRFs, and colour sorting places on additional 
burden on MRF resources. ... 

For these reasons, a number of alternative uses for glass are being explored at this time. Use 
of glass as an aggregate substitute holds significant potential. The benefit of such uses include 
a reduction in transportation of glass to Consumers Glass (the only significant market in 
Ontario) and reduced isorting and handling requirements to remove minor amounts of 
contamination. 



May ] 994 - Page H7-5 



Minisiry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



HI. 2 Markets for TexUles 



Introduction 

Markets for used textiles are beginning to expand, and are likely to continue to grow over the 
next several years. Demand significantly outweighs supply. Although textile reuse (for 
personal and industrial applications) has long been practiced in some sectors, regular residential 
collection of the material is still in an early stage of development. Recent data from the 
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton's waste composition study indicates that up to 3% 
(3,200 tonnes) of disposed waste in the city still consists of used clothing, textiles and leather 
goods (McGregor, Ottawa-Carleton), a finding which corresponds with a study by Franklin 
Associates (US) that reports textiles as 4.9% of the disposed wastestream. While not a huge 
portion of the waste stream, it is significant. Waste reduction through diversion of textile 
waste is expected to expand with the continued growth and development of existing markets. 

Definition 

In this report, textile is defined as used (or post consumer) clothing and household texules 
(sheets, drapes, etc.). It usually does not include vinyls, plastics, leathers, belts, raincoats, 
luggage, ski gloves, handbags or shoes. • 

Traditional Textile Market Overview 

There are three major markets for used textiles. These include Clothing, Fibre Markets and 
Industrial Wiping Cloth markets. 

Clothing is the largest single use of textiles. Old clothes are sold for domestic and exported 
markets. Most processors sell a large portion of their output to Third World export markets 
because of the prohibitively high costs of new clothing in many countries (Haiti, India, Japan, 
Kenya, Pakistan, Senegal). 

End uses of textiles sold as industrial fibre are diverse. One grade of textile (cotton rag stock) 
is sold to manufacturers of rag bond paper. Some wooil garments are sold to nianufacturers 
and rewoven into new garments. Other textile grades are used to pad upholstery and car 
interiors. Items such as cotton swabs, mops, gauze and mattress pads also often contain 
recycled fibres. The majority of material sold to fibre markets is exported. 

The market for Industrial Wiping Cloth is almost exclusively domestic. Several used textile 
grades are trimmed and cut for sale to industries for cleaning machinery or spills, and for 
intermediate or final polishing of products before shipment. Concerns over the cost and 
environmental impact of virgin wiping cloth products have favoured recycled alternatives in 
recent years. 

Current Textile Market Overview 

Waste composition data from the Centre & South Hastings program indicates that 
approximately 15 kg of lextiles/hh/yr are available for recycling (Argue, CSH) while only 
about 10% of this is presently being captured in the program. 

Both domestic and export markets for used textiles are strong at present. As a result of the 
high cost of new clothing and virgin fibres, domestic demand for used textiles has increased 
over the past 10 years. {Resource Recycling February 1992) In the U.S., the textile 
processing industry sees a shortage of supply as a major problem. A 1991 report in New York 
City surveyed 35 textile recyclers and found that all had additional capacity (of up to 30%). 
{Resource Recycling February 1992). 

The City of Mississauga is the only GTA municipality currently involved in curbside collection 
of textiles. A key requirement is that materials must be free of moisture. This demands greater 
effort and care on the part or residents, in order to make the program successful. Materials 

May 1994 Page H7-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



collecied are separated at the Mississauga MRF and donated to Goodwill for retail sale, and for 
sale to salvage dealers as fiber. 

Two other Ontario communities are presently collecting textiles at curbside. These include the 
City of Ottawa and CenU-e and South Hastings. A Centre and South Hastings study has shown 
that materials collected are marketed primarily for their highest use, as clothing for export to 
the Third World (84%). Other textiles are sold as shredded material for mattresses (13%), 
industrial wipes (2%) and reusable clothing { 1 %). 

Other GTA textiles diversion programs include: 

• The Regions of Metro Toronto and Durham have each sponsored the acquisition, 
refurbishing and placement of staffed collection trailers for Goodwill. The Region 
of Durham gave Goodwill a capital grant, helped them to locate their trailers, and 
promoted Goodwill in their public education efforts. While not operating a 
collection program, the Region was able to divert 1,223 tonnes of material (textiles 
in addition to other materials), collected from 3 Goodwill drop off sites in Whitby 
in 1991; 

• diversion through the Salvation Army where materials are baled and warehoused 
prior to shipment to Metro markets; 

• textile collection through an igloo depot system in the City of Brampton; 

• door-to-door collection by private entrepreneurs, where used clothing is collected 
and sold to second hand clothing stores or salvagers. 

Quality standards for textiles are becoming more stringent. For successful waste diversion, 
end users have established several specifications that must be met, as defined by the intended 
market. These include: . 

• textiles must be undamaged e.g. (not dirty or containing mildew); 

• material must be trimmed (e.g. with buttons and zippers removed, etc.); 

• textiles must be sorted (there are as many as 1 50 recognized grades of textiles); 

• materials must be baled although some end markets will accept textiles in gaylords, 
or wrapped in plastic film; 

• textiles intended for fibre markets may have to be processed through a tearing 
machine to prepare them for markets; 

• minimum load requirements must be met. 

Textile Prices --> • 

Prices reported to be paid for used textiles (in the three applications) throughout Ontano are 
relatively consistent. The majority of revenues reported to be received are in the range of 
$180/tonne. 

Diversion Trends 

The following programs highlight the trends in textile diversion that have been undertaken m 

communities across Ontario: 

May 1994 foge H7-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



• in 1992, Goodwill diverted about 10,000 tonnes of material (not just textiles) from 
GTA landfills through 10 Attended Donation Centres (trailers) and 20 stores 
(Thompson, Goodwill Industries); 

• the Ottawa program expects to divert 600 tonnes/yr from landfill (McGregor, 
Ottawa-Carleion); 

• the Centre & South Hastings program captures about 12 tonnes/month (this is 
equivalent to approximately 1.7 kg/hh/yr, or about 11% of what's available) 
(Argue, CSH); 

• Mississauga currently ships one 5 ton truckload every week or two to Goodwill 
Industries (Rathbone, Laidlaw Waste Systems); 

• the City of Brampton collected 3.2 tonnes of textiles in 1992 through their igloo 
depot system (Stewart, Brampton). 

Consistent with other programs that reuse textiles. Goodwill Industries report that they could 
handle significantly more material. Textile recycling is proving however, to be a seasonal 
activity. Demand is not steady, rather, the bulk of textiles are collected in spring and fall when 
homeowners dispose of clothes and rags as a by-product of house-cleaning 
projects.iBioCycle, February 1992) 

Reduction 

Despite efforts to promote source reduction, to date, little focus has been applied to textiles. 
Public education could well be directed toward extending the life of textiles, encouraging 
individuals to buy fewer, better quality garments which will last longer. 

Reuse ' 

Community agencies like Goodwill offer not only waste reduction benefits, but other 
community benefits such as work training programs, that can help people gain employment. 
There is a trend toward increased co-operation between these types of groups for ensuring full 
use of these products. Relationships between municipalities and community agencies can be 
very effective and efficient vehicles for diverting waste. For example, it has been suggested 
that periodic donation of municipal collection resources to assist these organizations would 
further promote development of reuse opportunities. Municipal sponsorship of reuse/charitable 
organizations will ensure continued growth of opportunities for reuse (i.e. through 
sponsorship or assistance with vehicles for charitable organizations). 

Recycling 

Centre and South Hastings operates its textile diversion program as an employment project for 
severely disadvantaged workers. This is a successful model that would lend itself well to the 
labour intensive nature of the preliminary processing involved in textile recycling. 

To maximize recycling of textiles 'for the GTA, private recycling firms may require 
encouragement to locate in the Greater Toronto Area. Industry expert Ed Stubin manages a 
textile recycling plarit in New York. He maintains that an economically viable operation must 
have integration of all three functions, since customers buy by the trailer load. This type of 
diversified operation would be probably be a viable venture for the GTA. Half of the textiles in 
his operation are sent overseas, the rest of the material is split between fiber uses and wiping 
cloths. His New York facility handles 12 million Ibs/yr (approximately 5,400 tonnes/yr). 



May 1994 Page H7-8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Market Outlook for GTA Generated Textiles 

The required infrastructure for reuse and recycling of textiles, both post-industrial and post- 
consumer, is available to absorb the amount of textile waste currently generated in the GTA. 
Textile diversion requires care and attention on the part of residents. However, ongoing 
projects in Mississauga, Centre and South Hastings and Ottawa show that this need not be a 
barrier to increased waste diversion. Assuming maintenance of steady demand for fibres and 
wiping cloths, and increased demand for used clothing, the market should continue to grow. 
An improved collection system and fully developed infrastructure should ensure that textiles 
markets will remain strong and make textile diversion a viable element of the GTA 3Rs waste 
diversion system. 



May 1994 Page H7-9 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H7.3 Markets for Wood Waste 

Wood waste is generated by many different sources. It is a not a homogeneous waste material 
and is found in a wide variety of forms, including: 

• Broken and whole pallets; 

• Crates and boxes; 

• Construction and demolition wood (e.g. flooring, dimensional lumber, end-cuts, 
roof supports); 

•^ Wood chips, shavings and sawdust from manufacturing processes (e.g. furniture, 
window, door manufacturers); 

• Manufactured wood (e.g. desks, doors, paneling etc.); 

• Wood scraps and end-cuts; 

• Tree stumps and brush; and, 

• Miscellaneous forms such as cable spools, telephone poles, railway ties. 

Current Markets for Wood 

There are a wide range of uses for wood waste. Most end markets require that the wood be- 
reduced to a consistent size such as wood chip, shaving or sawdust. Current end uses found 
for GTA generated wood wastes include: 

• Secondary wood manufacturing; 

• Energy recovery; 

• Production of fire logs; • . . " 

• Livestock bedding; ' • . 

• Mulch and compost; and, 

• Recreational/landscaping uses. 

There are approximately 29 operators in the GTA which collect and/or re-process wood wastes 
into more usable forms (MOEE C&D Strategy Team, 1993). The process operations range 
from large facilities with multiple shredders, screening and magnetic separation to more 
simplified operations that utilize mobile tub grinders and screening equipment. There are 
approximately 30 companies that collect, repair and sell used wood pallets. A number of the 
larger pallet refurbishers also grind residual wood wastes. 

There are approximately 5 companies that provide containers and collect higher value wood 
wastes such as sawdust and shavings from wood working manufacturers. 

Approximately 10 direct end markets arc active in handling wood wastes from the GTA. There 
are also an unknown number of farmers who utilize wood chips and shavings for livestock 
bedding. The majority of this material is collected by the farmers directly from wood waste 
generators such as furniture manufacturers. 

Wood Specifications 

Each end market application requires different material specifications. The specifications can 
call for particular sizing, wood. type, moisture content and usually require material to be 
contaminant free (e.g. metals, chemical residue, grit and stones). 

The Domtar particle board operation in Huntsville, Ontario requires hammer milled hardwood, 
free of metals and grit, whereas the Northern Globe roofing felt facility in Thorold requires 
softwood chips or shavings. The Ajax Energy facility requires that wood be free of 
contaminants such as plastics and food waste, but can accept nails in pallets and boxes. Fire 
log manufacturers tend to have much lighter specifications including type of wood, 
contamination levels and moisture content. 

May 1994 Page H7-10 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Applications where the wood will be used as mulch/compost or for landscaping also have strict 
specifications for contaminant free material including chemical residue and metals. 

Quantities of Wood Diverted 

Based on estimates provided by the end markets contacted, an estimated 94,{X)0 tonnes ot 
wood waste are being recycled from the GTA through secondary wood manufacturing and 
energy recovery applications. An unknown quantity of wood waste is utilized as livestock 
bedding and landscaping applications. 

A high degree of pallet reuse lakes place in the GTA. There are approximately 30 pallet 
reconditioners in the GTA that repair wood pallets for resale. 

Current and Future End Uses of Wood 

There are three end markets which utilize wood waste from the GTA as a feedstock in a 
manufacturing process. The largest operation is IKO Industries in Brampton, which utilizes 
wood chips in the manufacture of roofing felt for the building industry. IKO has the ability to 
receive 30,000 tonnes of wood chips annually, however, they are having difficulties in 
securing suppliers (Warner, IKO Industries). 

Northern Globe (formeriy Domtar) is a another manufacturer, located in Thorold, which uses 
wood chips, together with corrugated cardboard in the production of roofing felt. The facility 
handles about 13,500 tonnes of wood chips per year (Palento, Northern Globe). 

Domtar operates a particle board manufacturing facility in Huntsville. Domtar sources 
secondary wood waste from two suppliers in the GTA and has a current capacity of 1 1,000 
tonnes per year (West. Domtar Particle Board). Combiboard in Bancroft, which was 
producing a manufactured particle board, went out of business in 1991 . 

Can-Fibre has plans lo locate a facility in Halton to utilize wood waste in the manufacture of a 
medium density fibreboard. The facility will handle between an estimated 91,000 and 1 18,000 
tonnes of waste wood and boxboard. The process will use a blend of wood waste and 
boxboard with the goal by 1998 to have a 50/50 blend of materials. (Kyle, Can-Fibre). 

Utilizing wood waste as an energy source or for the production of fuel pellets or fire-logs is the 
second type of end market for GTA wood wastes. Ajax Energy Corporation bums wood 
wastes to produce sieara for sale to local businesses. Ajax utilizes approximately 30,000 
tonnes per year of wood waste (Saab, Ajax Energy Corp.). 

Some manufacturers also use wood wastes that are generated for internal heating requirements. 
Fire log manufacturers such as Bauman Woodfuel (2,500 tonnes per year) (Bauman, Bauman 
Woodfuels), Conros Corporation (20,000 tonnes per year) (Dias, Conros Corporation) and 
Monto Industries (2,000 tonnes per year) (Ferrier, Monto Industries) use wood waste in the 
production of fire logs for retail sale. Fire log production is seasonal in nature, with most 
' activity between June and September. , 

Wood wastes are alsp used extensively by the farming community as livestock bedding. This 
end market outlet varies seasonally and the farmers tend to work out agreements with local 
wood waste generators. The farmers that require the wood waste for livestock bedding tend to 
be located within or just outside of the GTA. RT Recycling in Stoney Creek produces a 
bagged sawdust-like material for agricultural uses. RT consumes an estimated 5,000 tonnes 
per year (Kahne, RT Recycling). 

Some wood wastes are used in mulch or composting applications. Miller Waste Systems of 
Markham accepts clean loads of wood waste at their facility in Markham. The wood is 

May 1994 ~~ PageH7-ll 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Stockpiled and a grinder is rented on a quarterly basis to produce a wood chip that is used at the 
Region of York's yard waste composting facility (Verhoff, Miller Waste Systems). White 
Rose Nurseries composts lumber mill wastes at their operations in Uxbridge. They use wood 
waste generated from outside the GTA due to limitations of local suppliers in providing a clean, 
consistent material. 

Recreational applications of wood waste include use on walking u-ails and in parks by local and 
provincial governments and Conservation Authorities, while operations utilize wood chips in 
garden and landscaping applications. 

Metro Toronto Works Department will be issuing a request for proposals to collect wood 
wastes at Metro transfer stations. Metro has "had discussions with two companies that have 
plans to use wood waste. Molded Strandboard is planning to use wood waste in the 
production of a molded pallet (Innes, Metropolitan Toronto Worics Deparunent). 

On-Site Energy is a 20 mega-watt wood burning facility located in Chataqua, New York. The 
facility has the capacity to handle 91,000 tonnes per year and currently sources material from 
lumber mills and nianufacturing operations in New York City, Montreal and Cornwall. On- 
Site has been actively trying to secure a supplier from the GTA for over two years. They are 
willing to accept an estimated 18,000 to 23,000 tonnes/year from GTA suppliers. The 315 
mile distance and the $9 - $10 per tonne offered for the wood appears to be the prohibitive 
factors in securing contracts with GTA supplier (Dowd, On-Site Energy). 

Supply and Demand of Wood 

Demand for clean wood waste material appears to be strong. For example, IKO Industries 
expanded their felt mill capacity to handle more wood waste material, and now cannot locate 
sufficient quantities of suitable wood waste. RT Recycling and Conros also expressed some 
problems in getting suitable material on a consistent basis. 

Based on the discussions with the wood waste end markets and wood waste processors, the 
most limiting factor currently is the diversion of wood waste through illegal operations and 
transfer of waste to landfill disposal in the United States. 

Wood Prices 

The prices for disposing of wood waste vary throughout the GTA. Farmers, for example will 
arrange to have the wood waste collected from a generator at no or nominal costs to the 
generator. Other locations such as die WCI, Wood Waste Solutions and Ajax Energy charge 
tipping fees that range from $30/tonne up to $75/tonne (Yeats, Wood Waste Solutions and 
Erwin Leonov, Waste Conversions Inc.). The processors also tend to provided variable rates 
depending on the type of wood waste, volumes generated and levels of contamination. 

Those contacted have said that the tipping fees charged have gone down considerably due to 
the low tipping fees being charged by legally and illegally operated transfer operations. 

The prices paid by end markets for clean wood product ranges from $10/tonne to $55/tonne. 
TransportaUon costs are aii imporiani factor to consider when hauling wood waste 

Reduce 

The introduction of alternative shipping containers such as plastic or metal pallets and boxes 
that compete with wood products will likely reduce the overall generation of wood waste. 

The home building industry have been actively involved in education programs to reduce the 
amount of wood that is wasted through inefficient practices. The Greater Toronto Home 
Builders' Association has established an ongoing education program with members to 

implement waste reduction practices during construction such as off-site framing. 

May 1994 Page H7-12 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Tecfinical Appendix 



Reuse of pallets through reconditioning or through pallet rental arrangements will reduce the 
need for new pallet manufacturing. The Canadian Pallet Council (CPC) is a non-profit 
association which tracks and monitors the movement of standardized pallets that are used by 
the consumer products and allied industries. The CPC pallet will last 135 trips if properly 
repaired to CPC specifications. 

Dom^could increase the percentage (from 10% of producUon to 20%) of GTA sourced wood 
waste in their process if quality and quantities could be improved and assured. 

It is unlikely that new or existing wood waste processors or end markets* will significantly 
increase their capacities to accept more material over the next year. This is primarily because 
illegal operations are charging much lower tipping fees as they tend to operate simple transfer 
operations with litUe separation. If the How of wood waste could be stemmed at the border and 
landfill disposal bans are enforced at GTA landfills, there will be a greater demand for 
processing capabilities and suitable end markets. 

Imports and Exports . ^ , , • r <- i tv:^ 

A limited amount of wood waste is imported into the GTA for the producuon ol tire logs. 1 his 
is mainly due to the high quality specifications required by some manufacturers. The imported 
material lends to come from Eastern Ontario and Quebec paper mills. 

The export of IC&l wastes to the United Slates has greatly reduced the volume of wood waste 
available in the GTA. Reports from the wood waste producers indicate that a high volume of 
wood waste is simply being sent for landfill disposal in the United States. 



May 1994 ' " Page H7^ 1 3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H8.0 MARKET DEVELOPMENT 

H8.1 Introduction 

Market development for recyclables is the key issue in making the recycling process work. AU 
loo many recycling programs have proven unsuccessful or become the target of criticism 
because once collected, markets were not available for productively using the materials. The 
need to identify new markets for materials, and in particular, to find value-added uses for the 
resources recovered is a crucial feature in planning for waste diversion. Each alternative 
system discussed in the 3Rs Analysis assumes that market development will occur, as this 
feature is crucial in ensuring that increased diversion can be achieved. Market development 
must go hand in hand with infrastructure and system development because if markets do not 
keep pace with diversion the material will need to be landfilled, reducing actual diversion 
achieved. 

The actual meaning of market development tends to vary. For some, market development is a 
technological and capacity issue - where the key to increasing the marketability of recyclables 
lies in developing new technologies to utilize the materials and work around any contaminants 
or problems that may be inherent in recovery processes, or in providing increased processing 
capacity by a variety of incentives. 

The more widely accepted definition regards market development as a policy issue. It focuses 
on defming effective policy instruments that will encourage greater utilization of secondary 
materials, and removing barriers that constrain or act against seeking out new and profitable 
uses. The policy elements address technological and economic issues, as well as those related 
to public perceptions of recycling. • . 

In the United States, the National Recycling Coalition has released a report by its Market 
Development Committee which focuses on determining which policies will work at the State, 
Federal or local level to enhance the economic viability of recovered materials. The report 
specifies six key policy options that could help increase demand, which include: 

• virgin material fees; 

• minimum content standards; 

• material specific utilization requirements; 

• manufacturers' responsibility (product stewardship); 

• shared responsibility (product stewardship with government support); 

• development of a national secondary material utilization trust fund. 

Of these, the minimum content-related options were most favourably viewed by NRC since 
forms of these already exist in many jurisdictions throughout the country. (Recycling Today. 
November 1993). •.= ... 

Market development policies and activities maintain several key characteristics. These include: 

• many secondary materials are iniemationally traded commodities; 

• recyclable materials are usually sensitive to the price gap between virgin and 
secondary material; 

• recyclable materials (especially packaging) are sensitive to the strength of the global 
economy; • 

• consumer choices and environmental regulations are beginning to have an impact on 
secondary material markets; 

• the development of markets for secondary material are constrained by technical and 
quality control issues. , ■ 

* 

May 1994 [ [ Page H8-I 



■ ' Ministry of Environment and Energy 

GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

"HIO General Approaches to Market Development 

This section of the report explains some of the policy initiatives that have been considered or 
implemented in various jurisdictions to create demand for secondary materials, including: 

minimum content requirements; 

minimum utilization requirements; 

tradable recycling credits; 

product Stewardship; 

government procurement; 

tax credits and exemptions; 

grants and loans; 

market development zones; 

co-operative marketing; 

virgin materials taxes; 

local market development; 

removal of existing subsidies on virgin materials, 

Minimuni Content Requirements 

Minimum content requirements establish an amount of recycled material that must be included 
by manufacturers in designated products or materials. The amount is usually expressed on a 
percentage basis (e.g. minimum 50% recycled content in newsprint). The requirements are 
normally applied to specific products (e.g. newsprint) or packages (e.g. glass bottles), 
although they may (in theory) be applied across a broad category of products/packages (e.g. aU 
plastic packaging). 

Minimum content requirements may be mandatory (i.e. implemented through legislation or 
regulation) or voluntary (i.e. implemented through a cooperative industry/government 
agreement). .^ 

Experience with minimum content requirements in Canada is limited. The City of Toronto 
enacted a recycled content by-law for newsprint in 1990. The by-law originally stated that all 
newspapers sold in boxes on city streets must contain 50% recycled content by July 1, 1991. 
Following strong opposition by the newspaper, publishing industry, the requirement was 
changed to 15% recycled content by June 1, 1993, 30% by June 1, 1995, and 40% by June 1, 
2000. ' . 

Minimum content legislation is much more common in the United Slates. At least nine states 
now have minimum content requirements for newsprint. Examples of the range of standards 
now in place include California (20% by 2000), Connecticut (50% by 2000), Dlinois (28% by 
1993), Maryland (40% by 1998) and Wisconsin (45% by 2001). In all cases, the content 
levels are scheduled to increase gradually throughout the. 1990s until the standards indicated 
take effect 

The Clinton adminisu^lion has also recently established minimum content legislation for federal 
procurement of pape,r. With the Executive Order on Federal Acquisition, all federal purchases 
of recycled prindng and writing paper are required to contain: 

• 20% post consumer content by the end of 1994; and 

• 30% post consumer content by the end of 1999 (Wastelines, December, 1993). • 

Although this will not immediately affect consumption of recycled paper by Canadian mills (as 
they are minimal suppliers to the U.S. Government), similar bills in Canada or in other 
Canadian export markets would significanUy increase demand. (Wood, 1994). 

May 1994 ~ Page H8-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 

__^ GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

Minimum content standards force investmenis in new or expanded recycled material utilization 
capacity (e.g. de-inking mills). Experience in the newsprint sector indicates that the impact on 
investments in market development can be substantial. For example, the number of Canadian 
newsprint producers using recycled feedstock increased from one in 1989 to 12 in 1992 
(GVRD, 1993). This represents a total investment of more than $1 billion, with no overall 
increase in industry output. Much of this investment has been a response to the trend toward 
minimum content requirements in the major U.S. newsprint markets. There are some 
indications that content requirements may also impact markets for other materials, where they 
apply. 

The Canadian government has unofficially challenged minimum content requirements in the 
U.S., on the basis that this form of legislation is an attempt to dictate to another nation how to 
carry out its manufacturing processes (possibly a GATT violation). The concept of using 
minimum content requirements to force the use of locally-generated materials (i.e. generated 
within the region where they are recycled) raises additional trade concerns, based on the 
argument that this would give an unfair advantage to local industries over importers. 

A related issue concerns the harmonization of existing content requirements. Even if minimum 
content requirements are acceptable under international trade laws, there will be ongoing 
pressure from industry to avoid a complicated patchwork of standards varying from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

Minimum Utilization Requirements 

Minimum utiUzation requirements have been debated and discussed but not yet implemented in 
practice. They are designed to be imposed on manufacturers, consumer product companies, 
importers or other responsible entities which would be required to utilize a specified amount of 
secondary material by a pre-determined date. Utilization would be achieved through a variety 
of means, including direct use of recycled content products, or contracting other parties to 
reuse or recycle the designated materials in an acceptable manner. 

Utilization requirements are often considered more flexible than minimum content requirements 
because diey allow indusuies to use recovered materials in a range of end uses. (For example, 
post-consumer glass containers might be used as aggregate in road construction, incorporated 
into products such as reflective paint, or remanufactured back into new glass containers.) The 
products or packages to which the utilization standards apply can be defined broadly (e.g. all 
plastic packaging) or narrowly (e.g. rigid HDPE containers), depending on the desired 
outcome of the program, with die requirements applied on a company-specific or industry wide 
basis. 

Udlization requirements have been proposed at the federal level in the U.S. for paper and paper 
products, and packaging made of glass, aluminum, steel and plastic. For example, U.S. 
federal legislation proposed in 1992 (Bill S976) incorporated a form of utilization requirements 
as part of a multiple options system that would allow responsible entities to achieve material- 
specific utilization targets by implementing any combination of the following: 

• using secondary materials in their own products or packaging; 

• purchasing credits from other manufacturers who use secondary materials. 
Tradable credits would provide companies with Uie option of purchasing credits 
from other companies exceeding the utilization targets; 

• ensuring that the products or packages are reused for a purpose identical to their 
original purpose; 

• reducing the weight of materials used in packages or products (GVRD, 1993). 
May 1994 Page H8-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 

GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

Similar legislation has been introduced, but not passed, in California. 

The potential drawback of this option is that it may create a tendency to move toward lowest- 
cost material utilization (e.g. use of glass in roadbed), even if other options involving greater 
value-added approaches are available. This option also raises administrative questions and 
concerns. The concept implies that all options available can be tracked, monitored and 
enforced, which could become highly complex if a broad range of products and materials are 
affected. 

Utilization requirements are expected to lead to a more diversified form of market development 
than minimum content requirements, since a wider range of end uses would qualify (e.g. a 
minimum utilization requirement for glass could stimulate a demand for glass crushers, 
specialty glass producers, manufacturers of foam glass block, etc.) A utilization model may 
generate less opposition from the targeted industries than minimum content requirements due to 
the increased flexibility. 

Product Stewardship (with Market Development) 

Product stewardship programs (also known as manufacturers' responsibility programs) 
transfer responsibility for the management of designated waste products/packages to the 
producers, importers or other designated "responsible entities" in the private sector. A variety 
of stewardship models have been proposed and debated and some have been implemented. 
Product Stewardship programs do not always incorporate market development (e.g. the 
German Green Dot System) however, this feature is crucial in ensuring that the potential for 
waste diversion is realized. These programs can significantly increase collection of recyclable 
materials, but if markets are not prepared to accept and utilize the materials, then Uieir positive 
affect is reduced. . . ; . ' , " 

Stewardship organizations and programs vary widely. The options available range from full 
stewardship programs, in which the industry takes legal possession of the secondary materials 
and pays for the entire costs of their management, to partial stewardship approaches, whereby 
industry participates financially in a joint public/private sector waste management system and 
does not necessarily become directly involved in the ownership of secondary materials, 

The Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI) is an example of a prominent 
Canadian product stewardship program that includes a significant market development 
component. CIPSI proposes a system of industry levies in which each industry member pays 
a 'fee in proportion to the actual costs of managing their packages that would be collected under 
the product stewardship scheme. This model incorporates an explicit market development 
incentives that includes a rebate paid to industry members that are able to utilize secondary 
packaging. 

The ultimate aim of CIPSI is to provide incentive and direct investment in the development of 
strong, stable and economic markets for packaging materials, leading a lower cost and more 
effective packaging management system. Involved parties would include packaging material 
industries (to manage post-use future of the material); govemment (at a federal and provincial 
level, to assist with research, development and supporting legislation as required) and other 
interests; 

A major concern with traditional product stewardship models has been that they may lead to the 
formation of secondary material "cartels" or other forms of highly concentrated control over 
secondary material flows. There are concerns that small and mid-size manufacturers, 
distributors or reuse/recycling industries may be placed at a serious disadvantage as large 
industries organize to purchase, market and utilize materials. 

May 1994 ^ " PageHS^ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 

CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

Most industry led product stewardship programs do not automatically lead to market 
development. Left to their own devices, industries that are made responsible for diverting their 
products or packages from waste will generally seek the most cost-effective method for dealing 
with those products or packages (which may not include recovered materials). Therefore, a 
market development component must be built into a plan in order that materials recovered may 
be productively used. Requirements specifying exactly which reuse or recycling alternatives 
are acceptable or developing an industry fund dedicated to opening markets development are 
just two approaches that can be helpful. A blended approach of several different initiatives and 
types of initiatives can also lead to success. 

Government Procurement 

Procurement policies and programs encourage or require government agencies to purchase 
goods which are made from reused or recycled materials. The goal is to stimulate markets for 
secondary materials, thereby improving the economic viability of recycling programs and 
industries. Common procurement techniques include: 

• procurement goals, which are stated commitments to purchase certain types or 
amounts of reused or recycled materials; 

• set aside policies, which require that certain categories of products (e.g. office 
paper) must include recycled content; 

• price preferences, which specify a premium that will be allowable for purchases of 
products with recycled content; 

• minimum recycled content specifications, which define a minimum level of recycled 
content to be included in designated products; 

• research and development investment to expand the potential for increased 
utilization of recycled materials; 

• information programs to ensure that purchasing agents are aware of reused or 
recycled alternatives. 

Procurement programs are sometimes mandated through legislation or regulations. It is now 
common practice in the United States for state legislatures to require state, county or local 
government agencies to implement set asides or price preferences. They may also be 
implemented in response to a policy directive, or on a voluntary basis or facilitated by the 
formation of cooperative buying groups or agreements involving two or more agencies. Some 
government agencies are encouraging procurement of reused and recycled products by 
companies in the private sector. 

In the GTA, The Governments Incorporating Procurement Policies to Eliminate Refuse 
(GIPPER) is a voluntary procurement initiative involving 1 2 Toronto-area municipalities, and 
several provincial and federal government agencies. Several municipalities have adopted 
GIPPER's Guide to Environmental Purchasing and have put various purchasing practices in 
place (MOEE, 1993). The City of Toronto has implemented policies to incorporate the use of 
recyclable and recycled materials, and durable and reusable products in their operations. 

In the U.S., the Buy Recycled Business Alliance is an example of a private sector procurement 
initiative. It has been initiated by the National Recycling Coalition in the U.S., with the help of 
a $50 OCX) (U S.) EPA grant. The initial 25 corporate members announced in the fall of 1992 
that they had purchased U.S. $2.7 billion in recycled materials the previous year. The group 
now has 35 sponsors, and a total of 100 companies have committed to increasing their 

MayJ994 '. ' '. ' PageH8-5 



Ministry of Environmenl and Energy 

GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

purchases of recycled materials. All of the core members contribute $5,000-15,000 (U.S.), 
depending on annual revenues. Other companies do not have to contribute cash, but must sign 
a pledge to buy recycled products and complete a survey on their procurement practices 
{Resource Recycling, March \993). 

Effective procurement policies are generally considered an important, if not essential technique 
for stimulating the growth and stabihzation of newly emerging markets for recycled materials. 
Governments, including all contractors and organizations using public funds, as well as 
government agencies which consume a significant portion of the goods and services in the 
economy, are a powerful purchasing block. Local governments may play a particularly 
important role, in local market development by targeting products and materials such as 
compost, used glass and C&D waste that cannot be cost-effectively shipped long distances. 

Market Development Zones 

A market development zone is a geographical area which is designated as a preferred location 
for reuse/recycling industries. Such a zone is intended to become a "green industry" area, 
where businesses that use secondary materials are able to share infrastructure and services, 
utilize common sources of secondary feedstock, draw from a pool of skilled personnel, and 
create a specialized base of industry and employment for the region or jurisdiction as a whole. 
Specialized programs and incentives, such as tax credits, technical assistance, grants and loans, 
are usually made available within the designated area so that these resources are concentrated 
geographically rather than dispersed widely (and perhaps less effectively). 

The leading example of the market development zone concept is California's Recycling Market 
Development Zone (RMDZ) Program. Local municipalities in the state apply to the California 
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to have an area designated as an RMDZ. 
Businesses locating within an RMDZ are then eligible for low interest loans. They are also 
eligible to receive tax credits, equipment and technical assistance grants, and assistance with 
regulatory compliance (i.e. a market zone coordinator in each approved zone is assigned to 
address regulatory issues). Sixteen RMDZs have been established in California to date 
(GVRD. 1992). 

Some communities in California have reacted negatively to the idea of a market development 
zone, fearing that it is another name for a garbage disposal area, and that nearby residential 
areas will suffer declining property values, environmental deterioration and other negative 
impacts. Communities may be particularly concerned that the zone will become an importer of 
post-consumer materials from other areas. 

The impact of market development zones on actual market development is unclear since 
practical experience to date is limited. They appear to have potential to play a key role in the 
development of local "closed loop" economics, in which recyclable or compostable materials 
are generated, processed, remanufactured and distributed in close geographical proximity. 
Alternatively (or simultaneously) the zones can become a centre for the export of recycled 
content products. 

To be effective, it is important thai these programs be implemented as part of an overall market 
development plan that focuses on key sectors where market capacity is required. Otherwise, 
market development zones, like any form of incentive program, can result in overcapacity for 
some materials and undercapacity for others. 



May 1994 PageH8-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 

GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

Tax Credits and Exemptions ■ 

A variety of tax credits or exemptions may be implemented by governments seeking to 
stimulate market development through financial incentives. The theory is that qualifying 
industries are more likely to invest in a particular jurisdiction if lax benefits are available. 

Tax credits/exemptions may take several forms, including: . 

• corporate income tax credits allowable on purchases of equipment or facilities for 
reuse/recycling; 

• sales tax exemptions for purchases of equipment and facilities for reuse/recycling; 

• property tax exemptions for buildings, equipment and land used in converting 
waste into new products; . ■ 

• exemptions for transportation fees or taxes paid for the movement of recycled 
materials; . 

• personal income tax credits for purchase of designated consumer products (e.g. 
furnaces that bum recycled oil). 

Tax incentives such as those listed above may be linked to a market development zone 
program, as in California. In this case, incentives are available only to industries locating in 
designated geographical areas. 

Tax credits and exemptions applicable to market development projects are becoming common 
in the U.S. and to a lesser extent, Canada. A selection of programs are summarized as follows 
to indicate the range of approaches currently in practice: 

• the new Canadian Scientific Research and Environmental Development SR&ED 
program was announced in the 1994 Federal budget. It is focused on assisting 
small businesses to become involved in scientific research and environmental 
development. Ii essentially provides a 35% investment tax credit on up to $2 
million per annum of qualifying expenditures for companies with a taxable business 
income that does not exceed $200,000. The 357c tax credit is full^ refundable for 
current SR&ED expenditures and 40% refundable for capital expenditures. The 
program is available to Canadian controlled private corporations only (Government 
of Canada, 1994); 

• since 1968, the Oregon Regional Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has 
granted Pollution Control Tax Credits to recycling operations that are constructed to 
prevent, control or reduce pollution. The program offers investment tax credits that 
may be taken against personal income tax, corporate excise tax or property taxes in 
some instances. The DEQ also offers Plastics Tax Credit to companies investing in 
plastics recycling equipment or machinery and administers a Business Energy Tax 
Credit Program for projects that conserve energy or use renewable resources. 

• manufacturers using secondary materials qualify for tax rebates of up to $300,0(X) 
(U.S.) in Wisconsin. Tax rebates of 5-10% are available to companies purchasing 
equipment or machinery for market development. Rebates are also available to 
companies making products from recycled materials that are at a competitive 
disadvantage to companies producing from virgin feedstock. 

May 1994 '' \ ~ Page H8-7 



Ministry of Environment and Unergy 
___^ GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

• individuals and corporations in Virginia may take advantage of a tax credit of 10% 
of ihe purchase price of machinery and equipment used for processing recyclable 
materials. The credit also applies to manufacturing plants that use recycled 
products. This type of equipment tax credit is also in a number of other states 
including, Arizona, Kansas and Louisiana (GVRD, 1993). 

Government tax credityexemplion and assistance programs are a mechanism for redistributing 
the tax (and other burdens) of targeted industries. The degree of influence that they may have 
on purchasing or investment decisions remains uncertain. If tax credits are available in specific 
geographical areas, as in California, they are likely to influence the location of companies. 

In isolation, these programs are not considered likely to stimulate tremendous growth in market 
developmeni but can te applied effectively in tandem with other options. 

Grants and Loans , 

Programs offering grants or loans are designed to stimulate market development by increasing 
the availability of financing to reuse and recycling industries. These programs usually respond 
to real or perceived barriers faced by reuse/recycling industries in securing adequate financing. 
Several incentives are available including: 

• loans which are generally provided for capital expenditures. Options include low 
interest loan programs and revolving loan funds; 

• ' grants which may be provided for capital expenditures, feasibility studies, research 
and developrnent, etc.; 

• ■ operating subsidies which may take many forms, including full or partial payment 
for specified operating costs (e.g. transportation subsidies, material price subsidies, 
etc.); " . - . 

• bonds which are used to raise capital. Examples may include tax exempt bonds, 
industrial revenue bonds. 

Several other measures may provide indirect support to industries seeking financing, some of 
which include: 

• providing information to the financial industry on industry trends and development, 
factors affecting business success/failure, etc.; 

• creating a voluntary financing network; 

• regulatory or administrative changes to improve access to financing through 
conventional channels. 

Other Canadian programs include: 

• Environmental Innovation Program 

A federal program that encourages research and development in natural science, 
social science and health issues to strengthen Canada's environmental science and 
technology, through the Green Plan. It is available to industry, university and 
native groups as well as NGOs and individuals. Programs involved may include 
recycling and market development (Canadian Research and Publication Centre, 
November, 1993); 

May 1994 ~~ Page H8-8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

• Cooperative IndustriaL and Market Development Program 

A federal/provincial program shared with the secondary wood products industry. 
Its goals include research into technical problems and technology transfer, along 
with technology transfer and establishment of quality control systems. Market 
development projects are applicable for funding under the program, to help 
businesses get involvad in export markets for the wood product sector 
(DOEyMOEE. May 1993); 

• Industrial Waste Diversion Program 

A provincial program in Ontario that provides technical and financial assistance for 
projects designed to use the 3Rs for diverting hazardous and non-hazardous 
industrial waste. Eligible projects include those which implement new 3Rs 
processes for IC&I waste; modify existing processes, equipment and operations or 
demonstrate technology and conduct research into 3Rs for IC&I operations. Up to 
50% of costs are available for eligible diversion equipment and 50% of the cost of 
installation and commissioning may be available. Projects that deal with applied 
research or demonstrate or evaluate a technology or process may receive up to 
100% funding, as determined on a case by case basis (MOEE, 1991). In the 
1992/93, the Industrial Waste Diversion Program provided over $8.0 million in 
funding towards 225 projects (Petoia, MOEE, 1994). 

Loan and grant programs have been established in at least 24 states in the U.S. Examples 
include: 

• the State of California which operates one of the most sophisticated loan programs 
designed specifically for market development The Recycling Market Development 
Zone (RMDZ) Low Interest Loan Program makes loans available to businesses 
involved in recycling and located within a designated market development zone in 
the State. Loans can finance no more than 50% of project costs up to a maximum 
of $1 million (U.S.); . ■ 

• Utah operates a subsidy program linked to the amount of material recycled. The 
slate will pay recyclers $21 (U.S.) per ton for tires that are made into new products 
or burned for energy; 

• the State of Wisconsin Department of Development offers loans of up to $750,000 
(U.S.) or 75% of project costs, and grants of up to $250,0(X) (U.S.); 

• the Minnesota Office of Waste Management is very active in market development 
financing. The first series of market development grants and loans were awarded in 
1991. The state received 56 applications for $2 million (U.S.) in assistance, and 
gave awards to 14 counties, private companies and research institutions; 

• the New York State Office of Recycling Market Development offers businesses 
grants of up to $100,000 (U.S.) for feasibility studies. 

Grant or loan programs may play an important role in market development, since a barrier to 
business start-ups and expansions in this area is limited access to debt and equity financing. 
Carefully targeted grants or loans may help a jurisdiction attract a particular type of venture that 
addresses an important market development need (e.g. a plastics processing plant in an area 
with no existing processing capacity). However, inadequately planned financial assistance 
programs may result in overcapacities for some materials and undercapacities for others. 



May 1994 PageH8-9 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 

GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

Co-operative Marketing \ 

Co-operative marketing generally refers to any arrangement whereby a group of government 
agencies and/or private companies agree to collaborate to market secondary materials. The 
basic premise underlying co-op marketing is that members can secure better prices, move 
materials to markets more efficiently, or find markets for a broader range of materials than 
would be possible through individual marketing. 

Co-operative marketing organizations may provide a variety of different functions or services 
to members including: 

co-ordination of contracts/agreements to jointly market materials; , 

joint purchasing of processing equipment and facilities; 

sharing of facilities, storage space and equipment; 

co-ordination of shipments to markets; 

education and training to improve source separation, processing and material 
quality; , 

joint purchasing of recycled products. 

As of June, 1992, there were at least 15 U.S. and Canadian co-operative marketing programs 
for recyclable materials although only two (the Bluewater Recycling Association in Ontario and 
the New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association) have more than five years of experience 
(Resource Recycling, September 1992). Relevant details of these programs include: 

• the Bluewater Recycling Association represents 40 municipalities and four counties 
in a predominantly rural region of Southern Ontario. Members purchase from a 
range of services, including training* curbside collection, processing and 
marketing. In addition to local governments, membership includes some 500 
businesses, 60 schools, two haulers and two private recyclers. About two thirds of 
the Association's funding is from service fees, and the other third is from grants 
from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy; 

• the New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association (NHRRA) was originally 
organized in 1983 to serve as a marketing network for 10 recycling programs. It 
now provides marketing, transportation and technical assistance to more than 174 
recycling programs in New Hampshire and several in Maine, Massachusetts, and 
Vermont, serving a population of more than one million. The NHRRA has 
agreements with five major end markets purchasing a wide variety of recyclable 
materials (Agitant, November, 1993). 

While co-operatives focus on "marketing" rather than "market development" they may have a 
significant influence on local investment in markets for recycled materials. It is considered 
likely that the existence of a strong marketing co-operative may influence the investment 
decisions of end users, since large, stable supplies of materials with consistent quality is a 
requirement for most plants. 

A large marketing co-op can also become a significant buyer of recycled content materials, 
potentially stimulating or creating its own end markets. A co-operative may also play a role in 
procurement. Several of the co-operatives listed above have programs to encourage members 
to buy reused and recycled products, thereby helping to stimulate markets. 

May 1994 ~ Page HS-IO 



Ministry of Environmeru and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



A potential concern related to marketing co-operatives is that they may detract from local market 
development efforts in some instances. Membership in a co-op may effectively remove 
responsibility for finding and developing local markets from a IoceJ government or non-profit 
recycling agency. 

Co-operative marketing organizations may also displace existing marketing businesses and 
infrastructure. In some instances, howevier, co-operatives have been able to work together 
with existing brokers, haulers and material processors for mutual benefit (as noted above, the 
membership of many co-operatives includes private sector operators). There is further concern 
that, depending on how a co-operative is structured, members may have to trade-off flexibility 
in marketing local materials to participate (e.g. there may be a requirement that certain materials 
must be handled by the co-op, or a restriction on the source separation practices or range of 
materials collected by memberis). 

Virgin Material Taxes 

In this market development approach, virgin material taxes would be imposed on the primary 
materials used by industry in. manufacturing products and packages. Such taxes would 
increase the cost of primary materials, thereby improving the relative economic benefits of 
source reduction and secondary materials substitution. Market development would be a direct 
outcome, to the extent that indusu-ies would invest in the technologies, equipment and facihties 
required to substitute secondary materials for existing primary feedstocks. 

Virgin material taxes have the potential in theory to encourage resource efficiency and stimulate 
an expansion in markets for secondary materials. However, it is unclear how large a virgin 
niaterial tax would be required to create a significant shift from primary to secondary materials. 
Further, it may take a long time for a virgin material tax to influence market demand for 
secondary materials. 

A virgin material tax would most likely have to be applied at the national level, in order to 
capture the majority of primary material consumers in any sector in a fair and non- 
discriminatory manner. It would not be possible to apply the taxes to all primary materials 
which conuibute to waste generation (such as organics). However, the revenues generated by 
a virgin material tax may be used to develop markets or expand reuse/recycling systems. Such 
a tax might be less complex to administer than other tax options (e.g. product and packaging 
taxes) due to a more limited number of tax paying entities and taxable product categories at the 
primary resource level. 

Experience to date with virgin material taxes is limited and includes: 

• the State of Florida currently imposes a fee of $1 1 (U.S.) per tonne on newsprint, 
and uses the funds for waste management programs. The Florida measure is 
generally seen as a fund-raising mechanism only, since this fee is too low to have a 
significant effect on purchasing decisions. 

• a proposal to introduce a virgin materials levy of $8.25 (U.S.) per tonne on 
designated materials was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 
(Bill HR 3737) but failed to pass. A virgin material levy with a rebate for 
secondary materials substitution has also been discussed at the federal level in the 
U.S., but never implemented (GVRD, 1993). 

This measure has implications for interjurisdictional trade and may be challenged as a non-tariff 
trade barrier under the Free Trade Agreement. Many analysts (e.g. the Recycling Advisory 
Committee of the National Recycling Coalition in the U.S.) argue that removal of existing 

May 1994 '. ~ PageWTl 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 

GTA 3Rs Analysis- Service Technical Appendix 

subsidies that favour primary resource consumption is a preferred and poteniially more efficient 
approach than adding a new tax. 

Local Market Development 

Establishing local, small and medium scale manufacturing businesses that use recyclables as 
their primary feedstock is helpful in strengthening the economics for recycling in a region and 
in promoting local economic diversification. The primary objectives of local market 
development are: . 

• to develop local markets for secondary material; 

• to create jobs locally; 

• to spur local and regional economic growth. 

Two main pressures have increased interest in local market development. These include 
pressures to create jobs (at "affordable prices") within the local economy and the shift in 
emphasis from focusing on the "supply-push" of growing residential recycling services to pay 
attention to creating new "demand-pull" end market opportunities. 

Local business development, local job creation and offsetting long distance transportation costs 
are three potential benefits of local market development. However, as with larger scale, more 
capital intensive market development investments, local opportunities can also be a risk. Many 
of the initiatives described in this report are new and emerging business opportunities. 

One of the key issues in determining the proper market development strategy for each 
secondary material type (and for the province as a whole) is to seek the right balance between 
traditional and die relatively new category of local market development. 

In Ontario, several initiatives have been undertaken to encourage local market development 
using recycled materials. The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy has sponsored 
creation of a local market development workshop. The workshop focuses on bringing together 
local entrepreneurs, recycling officials and potential financiers in order to stimulate local 
business development. The first such workshop was piloted in the community of 
Hamilton/Wen two rth in June, 1993. 

t 

The issue of local market development has gained considerable attention due to the potential for 
innovation and productive local use of an available commodity. In most cases, local market 
development initiatives do not compete with the large, industrial uses of recovered materials. 
However, these initiatives do provide an important and growing market for recovered 
materials, particularly in areas where transportation to market would otherwise inhibit 
recovery. 

Remove Existing Subsidies on Virgin Materials 

A potential market development suategy facilitating recyclable utilization would entail removing 
existing subsidies that are applied either directly, on resource extraction and manufacturing of 
virgin materials and associated products, or on the other inputs to these products (such as 
energy or water). Various federal incentives were originally established following World War 
I to spur economic development and to help industry to recover from periods of depression. 
Many were intended to be repealed once the economic situation became more stable. In reality, 
ic'wh2ivc (Recycling Times, June, 1993). , 

A recent study conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examined a 
wide range of potential effects on material utilization. The subsidies take the form of 
percentage depletion allowances, capital gains treatment of income, deduction for expenses, 



May 1994 PageH8-12 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 

GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

foreign tax credits, discriminatory transportation pricing, below-cost timer sales and energy 
subsidies. Failure to internalize the full cost of pollution is another example of a virgin material 
use subsidy that could hinder recycling. 

The report shows energy subsidies as the largest single factor encouraging virgin material use. 
Because virgin material use is typically more energy intensive than is recycling (e.g. glass, 
aluminum production), the report finds the subsidies provide more benefit to primary 
industries. 

While the report showed impressive dollar costs attributed to subsidies, as a percentage cost of 
actual production, they were very small (approximately 1.5% of costs in the paper industry) 
{Recycling Times, 1993). In the U.S., the portion of costs is low due to the low fraction of 
domestically produced resources used in the production of primary materials (Resource 
. Recycling, June, 1992) and it did not account for utilization of resources imported from 
countries. where subsidies are a major factor. Whether, or to what degree this may be different 
in the Canadian context is open to speculation. 

According to the report, on its own, the removal of the virgin subsidies factor would not be the 
sole determinant in whether a plant would manufacture virgin or recycled fiber, but it may play 
a part. Also, while annual dollar figures are small, the historical cumulation of subsidies is 
remarkable. Conversely, in the U.S., where some subsidies have been repealed (such as the 
capital gains treatment of timber which was repealed by 1986 federal tax reforms), this impact 
will be felt for years to conie. 

Based on information available at this time, the potential direct impact on recycling and market 
development that would be caused by removing subsidies from virgin materials is not clear. 

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) Material Strategy Team 
Process 

The Waste Reduction Office of the Ontario MOEE established a set of material strategy teams to 
support and identify barriers to achieving provincial goals of 25% waste diversion by 1992 and 
at least 50% by 2000. Four multi-stakeholder interest groups have been established to develop 
strategies for waste diversion, focusing on materials that constitute major portions of the waste 
stream. This approach has drawn industry together with individuals and government in a 
"problem solving" exercise to increase potential for waste diversion.. Primary goals of the 
groups were to develop environrrientally sound strategies to divert additional materials from 
disposal, to promote development of strong and stable markets for the materials and set 
deadlines for developing the stfategies and achieving the goals. The 4 groups formed include; 

• Ontario Plastics Strategy Team; 

• Ontario Organic Material Strategy Team; 

• Paper Fibre Strategy Team; 

• Construction and Demolition Waste Strategy Team. 

Reports from the latter two teams were released in October, 1993. They summarize major 
waste diversion activities and practices by various industries, identify general barriers to waste 
diversion and propose practical action plans to overcome the barriers. 

The Paper Fibre Strategy Report (Keeping Paper Out of Ontario Landfills: Progress and 
Action) identifies 19 action initiatives that could be undertaken to increase waste diversion of all 
types of paper. A selection of some of the initiatives that focus on market development include: 

• developing procurement policies to support paper fibre diversion; 



May 1994 . . Page H8-13 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 

^ '^^ -^^/ A/miv5ij - Service Technical Appendix 

» identifying funding sources and research organizations to promote research needs 
for waste paper diversion; 

• design and deliver market development workshops; 

• develop markets for low grade secondary paper fibre. 

The C&D Strategy Team Report (Keeping C&D Out of Landfills: Conserving Resources and 
Minimizing Waste in the Construction Industry) presents 26 action plans that arc designed to 
incorporate or promote the 3Rs, building on existing sectoral initiatives and provincial efforts 
for waste diversion. The action plans address issues such as policy requirements, 
specifications and standards for recyclables and recycling, education needs, technology and 
infrastructure development and markets. A selection of key initiatives that focus on market 
development include: . * . ■ 

• strengthening and consolidating information resources about recycled materials for 
the C&D industry; 

• expanding, markets by establishing recycled content specifications and performance 
standards for recycled C&D materials, testing C&D materials etc. through the 
BUILD GREEN program; 

• developing and promoting private and public sector procurement policies that 
support recycled materials; 

• design and deliver market development workshops to encourage local economic 
development communities to invest in 3Rs ventures; 

• developing economic incentives to support recycling. 

The Material Strategy Team Action Plans identify lead agencies and suggest timelines for 
implementation of proposals, and could lead to significant inroads in market development for 
rccovercd recyclable materials. 



May 1994 PageH8-14 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H9.0 REFERENCES 
H9.1 Plastics 



B.C. Environment. 1990. A Market Development Plan for Recyclable Materials in British 
Columbia. 

Environmental Packaging. May 1993. Plastic Container CoAng Status. 

Environmental Packaging. February, 1994. Study Group Supports ISO's Plastic Resin 
Coding System. 

Green Packaging 2000. May 1993. Canadian film converters begin curbside collection in 
Ontario. Green Packaging 2000, 

Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada (GPMC). November 1992. Packaging 
Stewardship Model. .• » . 

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc. (ISRI) 1991. Scrap Specifications Circular 1991. 

Lauzon, Michael. May 10, 1993. Recycled Film to Find Markets. Plastic News. 

Minnesota Office of Waste Management. June 1992. Plastics Reduction and Recycling. 

Modem Plastics. Mid-December 1992. Plastics Solid-Wastes Advisory: North American 
\J\it2i\&&. Modem Plastics: Encyclopedia 1993, Volume 69:33. 

NAPCOR. Winter. 1994. State of the An in Auto-Sort Technology. PETTECH. 

Ontario Multi-Material Recycling, Inc. (OMMRI), 1993. Ontario Recovery System: Material 
Breakdown. 

Powell, Jerry. May 1992. The Ups and Downs in Bottle-to-Bottle Plastics Recycling. 
Resource Recycling. 

Proctor & Redfem. 1990. Mixed Rigid Plastic Container Separation and Recycling Facility 
Feasibility Study ( Final Report). 

Quinte Regional Recycling. April 1993. Blue Box 2000. The First Year. Quinte. ^ 

Recycling Canada. April 1993. Manufacturers Hope to Slaken Anti-Plastic Procurement 
Policies! Recycling Canada. 

Recycling Council of Ontario. Secondary Material Marketshirectory. November 1992. 
RCO. 

Recycling Today. November 16. 1992. P&G Markets Reuse. Recycling Today. 

Resource Recycling's Plastics Recycling Update. January 1993. Resin Consumption Data. 
Resin Consumption Data. Resource Recovery's Plastics Recycle Update. 

Resource Recycling's Recycled Plastic Update. December 1992. Polystyrene Recycling 
News. Resource Recycling ' Recycled Plastic News. 

May 1994 "" ~ '. 'PagTm^l 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



RIS. 1992. Interviews. 

Standford, Jay, Dave Climenhague, and Ivan Bateman. May 1992. Residential plastic film 
recycling. Resource Recycling. 

The Environment and Plastics Institute of Canada (EPIC). May 1991. Plastic News. 

The Vinyl Institute (A Division of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.. Environmental 
Fact Kit. 1994.. , - 

The Market. April 1993. Special Edition: Plastics Recycling. A Report on Recycling Markets 
In and Around New York State. 

Watson, Tom. July, 1990. "Products from Mixed Plastics: Will the Profits Follow?". 
Resource Recycling. 

White, Kathleen. June 30, 1992. Some Plastics Recyclers Praise Automated Sorters. 
Recycling Times. , ■ 

Woods, Randy. July 27, 1993. Automated Plastic Sorting Industry Finding its Legs. 
Recycling Times. 

Personal Communications ■ ' ■ 

Hock, Helmut. June 1993. Personal communications with Helmut Hock, Angus 
Environmental Limited. 

Horn, Jim. February 1993. Personal communications with Jim Horn, Resource Plastics. 

Hyde, Mike. February 1993. Persona! communications with Mike Hyde, DOW. 

Edgecombe, Fred. March 1993. Personal communications with Fred Edgecombe, 
Environment and Plastics Institute (EPIC). 

Kuracz, Debora. March 1993. Personal communications with Debora Kuracz, Oxy Chem. . 

Nanda, Atul. February 1993. Personal communications with Atul Nanda, Metro Toronto 
Public Works. 

O'Lane, Kevin. February 1993. Personal communications with Kevin O'Lane, Plas-Re-Tech. 

Perrier, Phillipe. March 1993. Personal communications with Phillipe Perrier, Cascades 
Replas. V 

Potelle, Domenic. February 1993 and March 1994. Personal communications with Domenic 
Potell, Twinpac. 

Riddell, Al. February 1993 and March, 1994. Personal communications with Al Riddell, 
Dupont. 



May 1994 Page H9-2 



Min istry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3lis Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



H9.2 ONP 

Canadian Daily Newspaper Association (CDNA). June 1992. Old Newspaper Diversion: 
Issues and Opportunities. CDNA, Toronto. 

Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA) 1991. Reference Tables 1991 and 1992. 
CPPA, Montreal. 

Canadian Pulp & Paper Association (CPPA). 1992. Paper Recycling in Canada 1992. 

Canadian Pulp & Paper Association (CPPA). January 1993, January 1994. Recycled Content 
Newsprint Capacity. 

Greater Vancouver Regional District and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. June. 
1993. Technical Memorandum M2: Processing/Marketing and Market Development. 

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI). 1991. Scrap Specifications Circular 
1991. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy. October 1993. Report from the Ontario Paper Fibre 
Strategy Team. Keeping Paper out of Ontario Landfills: Progress and Action. 

Ontario Printing Paper Users Group (OPPUG). June 1992. Old Newspaper Recycling: Status 
and Outlook. 

kecycling Canada. Ontario Importing Old Newspaper from the U.S. December, 1993, vol 4., 
No. 12. p.5. 

Recycling Canada. Report Outlines New 3Rs Initiatives for Waste Paper. October, 1993. 
vol4., No. 10. p.2. 

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO). March, 1992. Toronto Backs Down on Recycled 
Content Newspapers. Ontario Recycling Update. 

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO). Jan-Feb 1992. Eight More Mills to Have ONP De- 
inking Capacity By End of 1993. Ontario Recycling Update. 

Resource Recycling. August 1992. Paper Notes. Resource Recycling. 

World Wastes. September 1990. New Markets for Old Newspapers. 

Personal Communications 

Boland, David. October 1993. Personal communications with David Boland, OMMRI. 

Ducsharme, Joey. February 1994. Personal communications with Joey Ducscharme, CPPA. 

Hamel, Martin, May 1993. Personal communications with Martin Hamel, CPPA. 

Hunter, Ide. June 1993. Personal communications with Ide Hunter, Strathcona. 

Johnston, Colin. June 1993. Personal communications with Colin Johnston, QUNO. 

Slack, Donna. June 1993. Personal communications with Donna Slack, Sonoco. 

May 1994 \ \ \ \ PageH9-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Young, Don. September 1993. Personal communications with Don Young, City of Toronto. 
Additional Sources 

Apotheker, Steve. July 1993. Market Trends for Old Newspaper. Resource Recycling. 
Fribert, Tom. January 1993. Alternative Uses for Recovered Paper. Resource Recycling. 
Miller, Chaz. June 1992. Newspapers. IVosf^iA^e. 

H9.3 OCC 

Andover International Associates (AIA). January 1993. Recovered Paper News from AIA. 

Apotheker, Steve. March 1992. The Affection Connection: Matching Supply and Demand for 
that Popular OCC. Resource Recycling. 

FifcreAfar/terNew^. June 18, 1993. Dealer News. : 

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI). 1991. Scrap Specifications Circular 
1991. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy. October 1993. Report from the Ontario Paper Fibre 
Strategy Team. Keeping Paper out of Ontario Landfills: Progress and Action. 

National Packaging Protocal (NAPP). December 1992. J 988 Benchmark Estimates Report. 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). January 1993. Market Assessment of 3Rs 
Activities in Ontario. 

Paper and Paperboard Environmental Council (PPEC). 1992. PPEC Shipment Data. 

Recycling Canada. August 1992. Packagers Claim Administrative Breakthrough in Source 
Reduction. , . , 

Recycling Canada. February 1993. New Recycling Process Promises to Turn Ailing 
Papermaker Around. 

Watson, Tom. March 1993. Major Retailers Sold on Recycling. Resource Recycling. 

Personal Communications t 

Christie, Maryanne. February 1993. Personal communications with Maryanne Christie, 
Sonoco. 

Remouche, Jeff. March 1993. Personal communications with Jeff Remouche, Domtar. 

Nelson, Bob. February 1993. Personal communications with Bob Nelson, Atlantic 
Packaging. 

Other Sources 

May 1994 " Page H9-4 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 

Apoiheker, Steve. March 1993. CX:C Tomorrow and OCC Yesterday - But What About 
Today? Resource Recycling. , 

Hall, Mark and Joseph Powers. September 1992. Source Reduction - the road to Improved 
Container Economics and Environmental Friendliness. TAPPI Journal. 

McKenna, Barrie. February 12, 1993. Domtar Invests $200-million in Recycling 
"Breakthrough". Globe & Mail. 

Recycling Today. February 15, 1992. Looking Between the Lines. Recycling Today. 

H9.4 OMG 

Apotheker, Steve. February 1993. The Mechanics of Old Magazine Recovery. Resource 
Recycling. 

Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA). January 1993. Recycled-Content Newsprint 
Capacity. 

Misner, Michael, March 10. 1992. Magazine Industry Subscribes to Increased Collection 
Efforts. Recycling Times. 

Ontario Recycling Update. 1993. Jan-Feb. 1992. Eight More Mills to Have ONP De-inking 
Capacity by End of 1993. 

Waste Age. January 1 99 1 . Magazine Recycling Up But Collection bags. 

Additional Sources 

Hill, James. March 1991. Old Magazines. Waste Age. 

EcoSource Inc. 1991 Trends; Magazine Recycling Capacity Rising Rapidly. 

H9.5 OBB . 

Franklin and Associates. July 1991. Office Paper Recycling Project for United States 
Conference of Mayors. . • , 

Ministry of Environment and Energy. October 1993. Report from the Ontario Paper Fibre 
Strategy Team. Keeping Paper out of Ontario Landfills: Progress and Action. 

Quinte Regional Recycling. April 1993. Blue Box 2000: The First Year, 

Recycling Canada. April 1992. High Boron Levels Nix Boxboard Composting Scheme. 

TAPPI Journal. March 1993. Recycling. 

Personal Communication 

Hunter, Ide. June 1993. Personal communications with Ide Hunter, Strathcona. 

Mullinder, John. February, 1994. Personal communications with John MuUinder, Paper and 
Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC) 

May 1994 ~ ' ] ' [ P^gTH^S 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Additional Sources . ' , 

Ontario Recycling Update. April-May 1991. Technical Problems Plague Boxboard 
Recycling. 

H9.6 Fine Paper 

Biocycle. December 1992. Composting Project On Prison Owned Land. . • ', 

Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA). 1992. Paper Recycling in Canada 1992. 

Chemical Marketing Reporter. July 27, 1992. A Ripple Effect. 

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI). 1991. Scrap Specifications Circular 
1991. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy. October 1993. Report from the Ontario Paper Fibre 
Strategy Team. Keeping Paper out of Ontario Landfills: Progress and Action. 

Recycling Canada. February 1992. Closed Loop Office Paper Recycling Experiment Dubbed 
a Success. 

United States Offlce of Technology Assistance. 1989. Facing Americas Trash: What's Next 
for Municipal Solid Waste. 

Wastelines. December, 1993. Getting the Feds in Order. 

Personal Communications 

Hunter, Ide. June 1993. Persona! communications with Ide Hunter, Strathcona. 

Remouche, Jeff. June 1993. Personal communications with Jeff Remouche, Domtar. 

Wood, Robert, October 1992. Personal communications with Robert Wood, CPPA. 

H9.7 Mixed Paper 

Bell Canada. 1992. The State of the Environment at Bell Canada. 

Biocycle. December 1992. Composting Project on Prison Owned Land. 

Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA). 1991. Reference Tables 1991. 

Goldstein, Nora. August 1992. Adding Paper to the Mix. Biocycle. 

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) 1991. Scrap Specifications Circular 1991. 

Misner, Michael. May 5, 1992. DeNova Grows in Recycling with Consumer's Steam 
Explosion MiW. Recycling Times. „ . 

Misner, Michael. September 24, 1991. Chemists Add Enzymes to De-ink Through Waste 
Paper. Recycling Times. 

May J 994 Page H9-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Resource Recycling. August 1992. Paper Notes. 

Resource Recycling. March 1993. Paper Notes. 

Rusten, John. January 1992. Developing Recycling Markets for the Components of 
Residential Mixed Paper, Resource Recycling. 

Personal Communications 

Dunkley, Jill. October 1993. Personal communications with Jill Dunkley, Quinte. 

Harris, John. February. 1994. Personal communications with John Harris, International 
Paper Inc.. 

Kabayama, Abe. March, 1994. Personal communications with Abe Kabayama, Tetra Pak 
Inc. 

Additional Sources 

lannazzi, Fred and Richard Strouss. April 1992. Changing Markeus for Recycled Paper. 
Resource Recycling. 

H9.8 Organics 

Beesley, Neil. October 1992. Collecting and Composting Food Waste. Biocycle. 

Biocycle. May 1991. Backyard Composting: The First Step to Organic Waste Management. 
Biocycle. , 

Buhr, Ann et al. January 1993. Compost Supply and Demand. Biocycle. 

City of Waterloo. March, 1992. Yard V/aste Collection Update and Collection Initiatives: 
Appendix A (Chronology of Yard Waste Pilots; Appendix B (Description of Pilots and 
Results); Appendix C (Yard Waste Collection and Inforrnation Card). Regional Yard 
Waste Task Force. 

Compost Management Associates. July-August, September-October, November- December 
1992. Inside Compost. 

Green, Ray. Composting Facility Will Divert Waste. Globe & Mail 

Harler, Curt, May 1992. Moving Compost: What Do You Do with All the Compost? 
Recycling Today. 

Marshall. Macklin. Monoghan Ltd. April 1991. Amendment to the Application to Construct 
and Operate a Composting Facility (Mammone Disposal Ltd.). Ontario Ministry of 
Environment 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. November 1992. Interim Guidelines for the 
Production and Use of Aerobic Compost. 



May 1994 ^~ \ '- \ P^8^'fi9T 



I 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis ~ Service Technical Appendix 



Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. Procedure for Gaining Approval to Use 
Alternative Materials to Use as Daily Cover in Landfills That Receive Only 
Municipal and Non Hazardous Solid Wastes. 

Peer, Daphne. February, 1992. Food Waste as Livestock Feed. Ontario Ministry of 
Agriculture and Food. 

Peer, Daphne. March 1991. Efficient Use of Products for Swine. Ontario Ministry of 
Agriculture and Food. 

Quinte Regional Recycling. April 1993. Blue Box 2000: The First Year. 

Regional Transportation and Environmental Services Committee (York). November 1989 
(adopted). Report No. 21, Appendix A. York Region. 

The Composting Council. August 1992. Potential U.S, Applications for Compost. 

Unwin, Peter. Oct.-Nov. 1992. Second Harvest: Turning Food Waste Into Square Meals for 
Needy. Ontario Recycling Update. 

Van der werf, Paul. February 1993. Compost as a Partial Nutrient Source. Biocycle. 

Waterloo Citizen's Recycling Committee. 1993. Grasscycling.Waterloo Citizen's Recycling 
Committee. 

Waterloo Citizen's Recycling Committee. June 22, 1992. Report to City Council. Waterloo. 

Presentations 

Iliffe, Frank J. May 12-13, 1993. Direct Application of Wastes on Land at Sir Wilford 
Laurier University, Waterloo. Ontario. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the 
Environment. 

Manager of Guelph Correctional Centre. November 4, 1992. Ontario Ministry of 
Government Services Conference at Leslie. 

Personal Communications • 

Alton, Jim. 1993. Personal communications with Jim Alton. SENES Consultants Ltd. March 
11,1995. 

Ariganello, Vito. 1993. Personal communications with Viio Ariganello, Metro Works 
Department March 10, 1993. 

Barrett M. 1993. Personal communications with M. Barrett of Barrett Farms, March 22, 
1993. 

Bates, Tom. Personal communications with Tom Bates, University of Guelph. 

Bibb, Dave. 1993. Personal communications with Dave Bibb, Hy Hope Farms, Ajax, 
Ontario, March 18, 1993. 

Dempster. John. 1993. Personal communications with John Dempster, While Rose Nurseries, 
March 30, 1993. 

May 1994 " Page H9-8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTASRs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Fedec, Larry. 1993. Personal communications with Larry Fedec, M.M. WUon, March 11, 
1993. 

Flewelling, Jeff. 1993. Personal communications with Jeff Flewelling, Region of York, 
February 11, 1993. . 

Gibson, Mike. 1993. Personal communications with Mike Gibson. Compost Council of 
Canada, March 18, 1993. 

Mammone, Frank. 1993. Personal communications with Frank Mammone, Mammone 
Disposal System Ltd., March 18, 1993. 

Nash, Cheryl. 1993. Personal'communications with Cheryl Nash, Orangeville Food Bank, 
June 1993. 

Rivers, Rob. 1993. Personal communications with Rob "Rivers, Mississauga Composting Co- 
ordinator. . , 

Rusk, Bob. 1993. Personal communications with Bob Rusk, Rothsay. March 11, 1993. 

Sanl, George. 1993. Personal communications with George Sant, George Sant & Sons, 
March 22, 1993. ; • 

Scott, Jim. 1993. Personal communications with Jim Scott, Scotts Fartns, July 6, 1993. 

Taylor, Paul. 1993. Personal communications with Paul Taylor, President, Compost 
Management Associates, June 1993. 

Theodorolus, George. 1993. Personal communications with George Theodorolus, MacLaren 
Engineers, March 10, 1993. 

Wight, George. 1993. Personal communications with George Wight, Altreai, July 6, 1993. 
Other Sources , ., 

Charters, Cindy. 1993. Personal communications with Cindy Charters, Ontario 
Superintendents Association, March 30, 1993. • 

Charters, Tom. Persona! communications with Tom Charters. Ontario Twf Research 
Association, March 30. 1993. 

Gepiella, Ed. 1993. Personal communications with Ed Gepiella, Grow Rick, March 12, 1993. 

Granateer, Ann. 1993. Personal communications vyith Ann Granater, Landscape Ontario, 
March 17, 1993. 

Hayward, Jim. 1993. Personal communications with Jim Hayward, North York Parks and 
Recreation, March 17, 1993. 

Humphrey. Kay. 1993. Personal communications with Kay Humphrey, G.l.P.P.E.R (Metro 
Toronto), March 10, 1993. 



May 1994 ■ •. Page H9.9 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Newell, Ty, Marksiahler, Elizabeth, Snyder, Mathew. February 1993. Commercial Food 
Waste From Restaurants and Grocery Stores. Resource Recycling. . 

R. Cave & Associates Engineering Ltd. Notes for Remarks. 13th Annual RCO Conference. 
Oct. 1992. Destination Elimination: An Economic Vision. ., . 

Zimmerman, Bruce. 1993. Personal communications with Bruce Zimmerman, Landscape 
Ontario Horticultural Trades Association, March 10, 1993. 

H9.9 Construction and Demolition 

CHMC. [tLd.]. Waste Management Action Plan. 

Donovan Associates Inc. 1990. Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste in Vermont. 
Prepared for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 

Donovan, Christine. August 1991. Construction and Demolition Waste Processing: New 
Solutions to an Old Problem. Resource Recycling. 

Gerrand, Brad. 1992. Building Towards Change: Recycled Architectural Building Materials. 
Paper presented at the Construction Specifications Canada Conference Calgary, June 
8, 1992. 

Goddard, Jim and Debbie Palermini. August, 1992. Managing a Resourceful Renovation. 
Resource Recycling. 

MacViro Consultants Inc. 1992. Preliminary Study of Construction and Demolition Waste 
Diversion Constraints and Opportunities. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of 
Environment and Energy. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy. Draft 3Rs Regulations. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy. October, 1993. Keeping C&D Materials out of 
Landfdls: Conserving Resources and Minimizing Waste in the Construction Industry. 
A Report by the Ontario C&D Waste Reduction Strategy Team. 

ORTECH, [n.d.]. Build Green: The Official Newsletter of the Build Green Program. 

Proctor and Redfern and SENES Consultants Ltd. 1991. Metropolitan Toronto Waste 
Composition Study: Discussion Paper 43. Prepared for Metropolitan Toronto 
Department of Works. 

Toronto Construction News. Sept/Oct 1992. Strategy Team Aims to Divert Waste from 
Landfill. 

Toronto Home Builders Association. 1990. Making a Molehill out of a Mountain. 

Personal Communications 

Allison, Jack. March 1993. Personal communications with Jack Allison, Laidlaw Waste 
Systems. .. 

Campsell, Jerry. March 1993. Personal communications with Jerry Campsell, Conwaste Inc. 
May 1994 ' Page H9-10 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Cowey, Nigel. March 1993. Personal communications with Nigel Cowey, Metropolitan 
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 

Graham, Bill. March 1993. Personal communications with Bill Graham, Philips 
Environmental. . * ■ , 

Lynch, Linda. March 1993. Personal communications with Linda Lynch» Harkow 
Aggregates. 

Martin, John, February 1993. Personal communications with John Martin, Terra Cave. 

McCamley, Jim, February 1993. Personal communications with Jim McCamley, New West 
Gypsum. 

Mittleman, Marc. March 1993. Personal communications with Marc Mittleman, Canadian 
Eagle Recyclers. 

Sizer, Colin, March 1993. Personal communications with Colin Sizer, City of Brampton. 

Tancredi, Frank. March 1993. Personal communications Frank Tancredi, Delsan Demolition 
Ltd. 

Teperman, Steve. March 1993. Personal communications with Steve Teperman, Teperman 
Demolition. 

Webber, Rick. February 1993. Personal communications with Rick Webber, Canadian 
Gypsum Corp. 

H9.10 Other Materials . , 

Recycling Canada. February 1993. Glassmaker Reports Large Jump in Recovery Rates. 
Volume 4, No. 2. . ■^ 

Personal Communications 

Paradiso, Joe. Personal communications with Joe Paradiso, Consumers Glass. February 
1994. 

Symington, Doug. Personal communications with Doug Symington, Consumers Glass. 
February 1994. 

H9.11 Market Development 

Areata Community Recycling Center. 1990, Recycling Entrepreneurship: Creating Local 
Markets for Recycled Materials. 

Bruening, John C. November, 1993. NRC Agenda Eyes Market Development. Recycling 
Today. 

Canadian Research and Publication Centre. 1993. Handbook of Grants and Subsidies, 
Federal and Provincial, Designed for Private Enterprise. Famham. 

Department of Finance, Canada. February 22, 1994. The Budget in Brief 



May 1994 , ■■ PageH9-ll 



Ministry of Environmeni and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix. 



Department of Finance, Canada. February 22, 1994. Growing Small Businesses. 

Department of Finance, Canada. February 22, 1994. Tax Measures: Supplementary 
■ Information.: . 

Greater Vancouver Regional District and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, BC. 
June, 1993. Technical Memorandum 2: Processing/Marketing and Market 
Development. 

Hood, Paul. June 29, 1993. "Virgin Material Subsidies: A Major Roadblock to 
Recycling?". Recycling Times. 

Huras, L, and Miller, P. Government Assistance Programs in Canada. North York, Ontario: 
, CCH. Canadian Ltd. , 

Ministry of Environment. 1992. Market Assessment of 3Rs Activities in Ontario. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy. October, 1993. Keeping C&D Materials out of 
Landfills: Conserving Resources and Minimizing Waste in the Construction Industry. 
A Report by the Ontario C&D Waste Reduction Strategy Team. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy. October 1993. Report from the Ontario Paper Fibre 
Strategy Team. Keeping Paper out of Ontario Landfills: Progress and Action., 

Powell, Jerry. June, 1992. Federal Disincentives to Recycling. J?era«rce /fecyc/i/i^. 

Recycling Today. December i 992. "Nonferrous Supply High; Demand Improving". 

Resource Recycling: September 1992. "Trends in Co-operative Marketing of Recyclables. 

Resource Recycling. April 1993. "How Are We Doing? The 1992 Report". 

Resource Recycling. March 1993. "National Recycling Coalition's Buy Recycled Campaign 
Means Business". _ . 

Resource Recycling. August 1992. "Recycling Milk Cartons and Drink Boxes: Practical 
Lessons in Market Development". 

Wa^re/jnej. December, 1993. "Getting the Feds in Order". . . 

Personal Communications 

. Agitant, Denise. 1993. Personal Communication with Denise Agitant, New Hampshire 
Resource Recovery Association. 

Wood, R. 1994. Personal Communication with Robert Wood, CPPA, March 1994. 



May 1994 PageH9-12 



SCHEDULE I 
REGION OF DURHAM ESTIMATES 



Ministry of Environmera and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Tecknicat Appendix 



Table I.l 

Exiating System 

Region of Durhiin 



CMupMimt 


: Waft* ' 
GiamM 
(Telal) 
<lninM) 


ltt«ti«Mtal 

S-FHkMa 
ItooBn) 


C i 

ftoOMl) 


]RMl4«i«itt 
M«eB«c 


tUi(J«kilal 

: ::W<al»:-:::. 

LinUUHl 
All 


inmMm 

Hilda 


Tool Residential Wu«c <loniia) 


140,0?^ 


122346 


17,732 


36,987 


ia3jD91 




Paper 

Newspaper 

Comigaled cardbcurd (OCC) 
Telephone Directories 
Mixed paper 


23,612 

3,642 

319 

2I,7B6 


20,111 

3,102 

272 

18,555 


3302 

540 

47 

3231 


12331 

1,446 
115 


llflSl 

204 
21786 
35268 


11 

2 

21 
'34 


SiibtciuKPapcri 


49360 


42,040 


7320 


HM 


Claaa 


7,034 


5,990 


1,043 


4319 


2715 


3 


TinpUte Steel (ferrousi 
Aluminum (non-ferrous) 


5,175 
1382 


4,486 

1,177 


689 

205 








Subtotal Metal (commlnBled) 


6,556 


5,662 


894 


3,177 


3379 


3 


Pintle 
FET 
HOPE 
Other Plasbc 

SubiotiT fniuMci 


289 
490 

7,259 


246 

418 

6,182 


m 

73 
1,076 


109 


180 

490 
7259 






7 

8 


BJD38 


6,846 


1,192 


109 


7,929 


Oiganlc* 
Food wwtes 
Yard waste 


31,651 
19,981 


26,957 
19,981 


4,694 


2380 
9259 


III 


28 
10 


Snbtotai (Organici) 


51.632 


46,938 


4,694 


11339 


397» 


39 


Wood Waste 


1,130 


963 


168 


621 


509 





Canatmetlan/DemoMtlon Waste 


2.135 


1319 


317 


752 


1383 


1 


DispoHbleCMapm 


3.768 


3JW 


559 




3768 


4 


TcKtllM/Lealhcr/RH bbcT 


5,778 


4,921 


857 


1,639 


4,139 


4 


Other 


4,647 


3,958 


689 


439 


4208 


4 


SoMrtiiW^-Oiiieif) 


17,458 


14/869 


2389 


3,451 


14J007 


14 


1 TOTAL 


140,071 


122,346 


17,732 


3*,9e7 


103 JNl 


100 



Rcddcntial Diversion = 26% 

Nolea: 

1) Cmnpj.i»40B«lijMl»h«d« Bast York d»ufn«|-|(Bldmtt*IW»»Comp™ition5h»dy, Vol, lol*f On 

2) Ysrd W»* fcopip- gtrewHd) d«t« horn The Phyikal *nl Emoooik OimmioM of Munici)ial SoUd Wate in OnUno'. OQMHat Eng. Ud, No»/91 

3) Whin Coodi (tomp. genenkd) mUmtti (iiicliKi«i in Tinpl*!. S»el loul) (rom •R*.i<l«i«i»l WvH Comp. Study, Vol. I of liw Ontaiio W»to Cbmp. Shidy', C fc S Ud. 1990 

4) RcUtivcplatioaHnpaaitkinbanlonBttkettl, IWl 

5) HouMhold dan piovidad by Hardy Stevnuon 4i Aiudaki, 19M ' - 
») DivBiioB d«t« provided by R^ion ol Durtum Workj DrpuCiwirt, 1 W3. 

7) Numbs al bacl^vd oDinpaikn pimided by Rigian trf DurhMin Staff, 1993. 

8) HouMholdt: S-F-»7J6»;S«ni/T™rn/Row-I!767;Lo«Ri»e-9,SIl:M-F-lI575. Nol. thai Smil/Tom/Rpw lncliid«i «rtlh S-lr L^ Rue iiidud«l wiA H-F tor *!• ai«lyib. 

9) Mar Id Chapl»f 4 for gcnsal aMuinptioni; ChapMr 5 for Region of DuriwRi ipacific Hiuni|*ioni. 



May 1994 



Page 1-1 



Ministry of Environmem and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Tabic 1^ 
Exiftlng/CoouniHMl Syilc 
Region of Duriiam 



riiTii«i«i 












KwtrUi^y 


1 ^ 1 




Wmm 


vtm* 


.y.yimt-- 


PHwriM 


IMnaim 


tVMM 


»fPb|w>i 




CiimiiM 


fill) III! 1 1 


ruiiiMit 


Mmm.) 


«MwnJ 


iTintftt 


WMI*(%) 




(TaUl) 


S>FHIiUa 


kH^IOM* 


flt^wliri 


£jdilii^ 


All 


All 




<tMUIiit 


dOMMl) 


<tOIMB> 


BImBox 


CoauidKcd 




HJild* 


Toul Rctidmtial Wwtc (tonns) 


140,078 


122,34« 


17,732 


364W 


42,370 


97,708 




F.|» 
















New»p«po- 


23,*12 


20,111 


3J02 


12J31 


12.972 


10,640 


11 


Comig»l«d cwdb<»rd (OCQ 


3,M2 


3,102 


540 


1.446 1,497 


^145 


2 


Tdephon* Directonw 


319 


272 


47 


115 119 


200 




Mixed pipe- 


21,786 


1835S 


3,231 






21,786 


22 


SabtolaKPapCT) 


«J60 


42,040 


7,320 


14,092 


14388 


34,772 


35 


CIh* 


7,034 


5,990 


1,043 


4J19 


4,471 


2.S62 


3 


Tmplatc Stcd (ferrous) 


5,175 


4,486 


609 










AJuminUm (non-farovB) 


1,382 


1,177 


205 










Subtoul McUl (cDimninitled) 


6,556 


5,662 


894 


3,177 


3,289 


3,267 


3 


Plastic 
PET 


289 


246 


43 


109 


113 


177 





HOPE 


490 


418 


73 






490 




Oth«r FU»tic 


7,259 


6,182 


1,076 






7,239 


7 


Sabtoul (PlHtic) 


8,038 


6,846 


1,192 


109 


113 


7,925 


8 


Orguixa 
















Food wuta 


31,451 


. 26,957 


4,694 


2,580 


3,040 


28.611 


29 


Yard wait* 


19,981 


19,981 




9,299 


13,419 


6J62 


7 


SaMotal (Organiis) 


51,632 


46,<a8 


4,694 


11339 


16,459 


35,173 


36 


WoodWalc 


1,130 


963 


168 


621 


621 


509 


1 




2,135 


1,819 


317 


752 


752 


ljfl3 


1 




3,768 


3,209 


SS9 






3,768 


4 


TntilaaOmhcr/RafcbCT 


5.778 


4,921 


857 


1,639 


1,639 


4,139 


4 


Ollwi 


4,647 


3,958 


609 


4» 


439 


4,208 


4 


Sahiotai (Wood - Oiiirr) 


17,458 


14369 


isw 


3,451 


3,451 


14,007 


14 


TOTAL 


140,071 


12X346 


17,732 


3«,9«7 


42,370 


97,708 


100 [ 



Note 



Rcaidcniid Dinnion ■ 30% 



1 ) CorpcUo. «rilm.i<. h-ri «, Ba« YdA dl«a (n» Tt«(d.>*i.l W«. Co»po..to« Shidy, Vol. 1 of IK. On.«1o W-.. C<mp. Sudj". G«. * Slomr Lid . ).„/ 9, („d. y.ni «.,» 

2) Vinl Wat> toodlp. gnwiM) dju (nai "Tli* FhrUci I uid Ecmumlc Dtimidon of Munldfal Solid Wm ui OBUrto", CM2MH11I Eng. LW, No./9t 

3) Wl«« Good. <cimp.rn«lri)«ll«ul,«Bcfcldcd 111 Tli.plil.St«ltM.UfnmTt»MBtfU|Wa«*Comp. Study, Vol.1 o^ 5h,dv- GtSLtd IW 

4) bbtta plHUn oovpottleii bucd 0(1 bck « iL ini 

5) HouHlioU data pnivtdad tiT Haidy SUnnon 4i AwxUtn I W4 

6) nvtnion dau pniirldad bjr hflm of Durham Worti l>putintM. I9«3. 

7) Niimlitrs<lsacl(ranJGDm|iaUimpnivid(db7RfglDnofDurhiniSuff,]9n 

I) Hou-hDld.: S.F - 97JW; S«.i/Tow./Ro« - 217«; L«, IU» - »52l; M-F ■ n,»5 N«. that Sml/To.,, /Itow ta.ck.d«l «.h 5-F; Low Rta iKiudtd w«li M-F for .hi. «a|jrt. 

9) R«fcrtoCliai«T 4 togaiiHil ■■iBipttolw Qiapt« S lor ll«glon of Durham .p«Ule MBjmptlo™. 

1 0) EiUing/aBimlMcd 17*01 Inckldn iDOO m bKky vd compoMan 

] 1) Uaf .nd j.id wa*a wvta up to th. 1ml of aanrta .«»l«, ta M«ro «3» d hmad > ha. h™ a«iiwd a. eompllanci wuh th, 3R.IUgiiiatl0M 
1 2) CoUKtlon Krvlix to nuiht-fanUy houKhi^. U isumcd to lIKRwi to 1 00% 



May 1994 



Page 1-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service fechntcal Appendix 



Tabic I J 
Direct CmI Syilcm 
Region of Dniham 



ConpcmnI 


Waal* 

tttUU 
ttotmaat 


Waala 
CanaMlad 
S-FHUdb 

(«OI«MS) 


Waila 

M-FIOMa 
(tomiaa) 


DhotiM 

ttoMMl) 

Slaiidaid 
■Wttw 


lUaUcttttal 
Dlncrton 

EafaUiit/ 
ConwMcd 


Caphti* 

1M«* 

(*) 


Divantoo 

DindCM 
AUHhlda 


WMla 
LaMlfittad 


otWifiurt 
Wa*i(«> 

Atl 


Totil RcsidenlMl WiMc (lonnn) 


140,078 


122346 


17,732 


36,987 


42370 




60356 


79.722 




Paper 

Newspaper 

Corrugated cirdboard <OCC) 

Telephone Diredories 

Mixed paper 


23.612 

3,642 

319 

21.786 


20,111 

3,102 

272 

18JSS 


3J02 

540 

47 

331 


12J31 

1.446 
115 


12572 

1.497 

119 


82.40 
63.40 

76.00 


17;605 
216 


6.007 

1356 

103 

21,786 


8 

2 

27 


Subtotal < Paper) 


49J60 


42M0 


7J20 


14,092 


14388 




19508 


29,452 


37 


Claaa 


7,034 


S-SO 


1,043 


4J19 


4,471 


70.30 


4368 


2,466 


3 


Tinplate Steel (ferrous) 
Aluminuir (non-lerous) 


5,175 
1382 


4.486 

1,177 


689 
205 






-V 








SubtetaJ Metal (cominingledl 


6,35* 


5i«2 


894 


3.177 


3,289 


61.40 


3739 


2317 


4 


Plartic 
PET 

HOPE 
Other Plastic 


490 

72S9 


246 

418 

6,182 


43 

73 
1,076 


109 


113 


83.40 


215 


75 

490 

7,259 



1 
9 


Subtotal (PlMtid 


8,038 


6J846 


i,iw 


iw 


113 




215 


7324 


10 


Orsanio 
Food vitmti 
Yard waste 


31,651 
19JW1 


26,957 
19581 


4,694 


24«0 
9JS9 


3W0 
13/419 




10493 
17583 


21,1571 
1596 


27 
3 


Subtotal (drguiieti 


51,632 


46538 


4,694 


11339 


16,459 




lSA7t 


23,155 


29 


WaodWaMc 


1.130 


963 


168 


621 


621 




621 


S09 


1 


Cotwlrvctioii/Dcnolilion Waale 


2.135 


1319 


317 


752 


752 




752 


1383 


2 


DlapoHMc Diapcn 


3.768 


3209 


5S9 











3,768 


5 


TcililcWLeathci/Rubber 


5,778 


4521 


857 


1A39 


1A39 




1*39 


4,139 


5 


Other 

SuNotaJiWowi-bthipii 


4,647 

il7;458 


3558 

i4JJ69 


609 

2J89 


439 

3,4Si 


439 

'"■ 3,451 




439 

' iAsi 


4,208 5 

i'4,biJ7 is 


TOTAL 


lio.on 


122J46 


17,732 


36,9*7 


4X370 




64356 


79,732 


IOC [ 



Reaiilenlial DivciBion > 43% 

Notea: 

I ) Coinpoalllai Munlai bad an Eaa York data <iwn "RaMdnntil Wmk Comfaaloii Studjr, Vd. t of ih* Omilo WiM Camp. Study, Con 4 StnrK Ltd. Jan /91 (nd. yM wiia). 

3 YlR) Ww* Itna^ gHi(ra«l) data tram The Phyakil and Eonamlc DUh wliiiu al MuiUdpd Solid Waali lii Onlarto'. CK2MK1U Efig. Lid., Nov/91 

}) WKIt>C>ii>dt(o«lV'|twnad)a>llnaM(liu±^*dliiTlnplat(StMltoull6imi'R(fld»i1alWiuCinp.Sludy, Vol. larthcOntirtDWiflcCo^^ I9W 

4) Rilatln plaxta eompeunoii bavd « IkIi M >l I Ml 

51 Hoi»«liatddaupwHd«d»yHaiiiySuv«ino«*AiaimaialW« 

6) Olv>nlandiUpniwtdadbyRfttsiiii<[>irtiatnWarkiDrpaftintf*, IW3. 

71 Number otlMCkyiidtonipei m tprmndad by lteglcBo([>irlumSm<.l*W. 

11 Hoaekatdi: S-F -»7JW:SttM/To«»B/Kow -a,?67;Low Rl« - »32]; MF- 1 1.Z7S, Note tint Snrt/Town/ltaw Uiduded wlih S-F; Low Rhalndudwl wtthM-F (or thUa»al)r»lfc 

4) Rrftr to Chiplrr 4 tor ;»Tral •lajmpnoni; Chaplrr 5 lor Riglon of Oirhim tpeaOr ■■iiiiftliiM. 



May 1994 



Page 1-3 



Tabic 1.4 

Expanded Blue Box Syatcm 

Region of Duriiim 



P«p«f 

Corrugilcd cjrdboird (OCC) 
Ttk-ptwne Diredoria 



COfll|NVMlri 



Totil Regjdenttol W««l« llonnes) 



RcridcnIM 

vtwm 

Gcnchted 
fTcUU 
(hinnc*) 



140,078 



23*12 

3A<2 

319 

21.786 



KaMMkntwl 

Wwic 
Gcnerried 

4lcmita) 



122;M6 



20.111 

3,102 

272 

18,555 



Kuldcntial 

Wvtt 
Genentod 
M^HhM* 

ftOfUM*} 



17732 



3.502 

540 

47 

3^31 



RwMmtial 
Dhreafan 
llonM*) 
Stuidud 
Due Box 



36,987 



12531 

1,446 

115 



KxwdcntMl 

Dl*entim 

ExMint/ 
Cooimittcd 



42.370 



12,972 

1,497 

lf» 



Qulntc 
Captm* 



82 40 
63 40 
76 00 
13 80 



Xoidcntial 
Divenlon 

Ell^Bl 
S-FHMd* 



58,291 



16,571 

1,967 

207 

2,56! 



Rcddcnliil 
tHTcnIott 
(tonne*) 

Up.n 

M-FHhl<b 



3J23 



1,443 

171 

18 

223 



Rceklenli*! 



(lonoe*) 
Expilf 

AUHhId* 



61314 



18.014 
2.138 

225 
2.784 

ij.iiib 



Xohkntiat 

WmU 
Lutdiiltn) 

All 
HouMhoM* 



78J64 



5.598 

1,504 

95 

19,002 

26,26b 



ofDlqioMd 

Weal* C«) 

Ait 

Hhldi 



24 
33 



Mixed 



IPff.'. 



SuHoiiJ tP«p«r> 



493M 



42,040 



7,320 



14j092 



14388 



21 



Ctw* 



7fl94 



Tinplile S(«l (lenou*) 



5,175 
1JS2 



5,990 
4,486 

1,177 



tfl43 



4,319 



4,471 



70,30 



,306 
4,211 



1355 



367 



4,578 



689 

205 



2,456 



Aluminum (non-(«rrou5> 

Sub»ot«l Metil Icomnilnglwl) 
fi— tic 
PET 
IIDPE 



6356 



5,662 



894 



3,177 



3,289 



6140 



3,477 



274 



3,751 



289 

490 

7,259 



246 

418 

6,182 



43 

73 
1,076 



109 



113 



83.40 
57 40 
15.10 



206 

240 

934 

U79 



18 
21 
81 
120 



223 

26) 

1,015 

i;499 



2,805 



66 

230 

6,244 



Other, Plistk 



SuMoUl IPImMc) 



8,038 



Organica 
Food wisle 



31,651 
19,991 



6,846 



1,192 



109 



113 



26.957 
19,981 



4,694 



2380 
9,259 



3,040 
13,419 



8,828 
15,995 
24,813 



561 



9390 
15,985 
25,375 



22,261 

3,996 

Mis? 



28 
5 

■34" 



Yird waslr 



SuHotii (Oiginlci) 



51;632 



46.938 



4,694 



11*39 



16,459 



WoodWutc 



1,130 



963 



168 



621 



621 



CoiMtnitHon/Pcmoliltan W«ri« 



2,135 



1,811 



317 



752 



752 



DtopoMbIt Pl»p«a 



3,768 



3,209 



559 



THtilM/Lnlli*<^ul>^r 



5,778 



4.921 



857 



1A39 



1,639 



Other 



Sublotal (Wood - Other) 



TOTAL 



4^7 



3,958 



17^58 



14,869 



140,078 



122,346 



689 

23»9 



439 



3/151 



439 
3,451 



17,732 



3«,W7 



42470 



7 411 



561 



559 



677 



621 



752 



1,475 



164 



1,639 



395 
3,106 



44 



439 



345 



3,451 



58,291 



3^23 



61,114 



R«identiil Dtvervion • 44% 



4) RiWIw pbMlct wmpoillloii b««i c»i Btdirt <l 1»W 

5) liouwhold diU pravtdBl by Hirty arwoto" *■ A"<«^"*- " '" 

6) D(«rtlon diU prov*J«J brlfeglonol DurK.mWorkj D.p.rtn«M. I9« 

9) H.f,rtoCt-p..r 4 (or g.«..l «.unT.k.n.. <L:h.p..rS for Region c( l>v.Th.m.p,cir,c ..^mptlon.. 



509 



133 



3.768 



4,139 



4,208 



14,007 



TIJ64 



100 



>3 



g.5 



■=1 

E. o 

I 



i 



Tabic 1.5 

Wet/Diy Sy»»«m 

Region of Durti am ' 



■ 'f. >/■ :■. - : ■ ■ "■■■■■■■ ■ ■ 


C*iwmait 

tkMtaat - 


Waria 
Qtmntfd 

IhMraari 


Kaataantial 

W4Pt« 

GanaMflad 

M-PHIiMi 

(hmneal 


Dtftitkm 
llMBaa 


XoMaalial 
PIvtiaioA 

OoilM*) 

Eaiatinft' 

OMMnHcd 


Quinte 

Otplfin 

Xatea 

<»> 


Haimaa) 
WetTOty 
S^Hhltb 


BaaMmltal 

(bMiwal 

Wat/Diy 
M-F Hhlda 


IHMMlM 

(taiaati 
WaVDrf 
AHHhUa 


Want* 

UndfllM 
All 


«lDi«faat<l 

WtaMM) 

All 

KhUa 


ToUl Ksldcntial WhI< (lonno) 


«0,07B 


122 J46 


17,732 


36,9871 


42^70 




73,027 


4.839 


77365 


62.213 




Paper 

Ncwvpapcr 

Conufmttd cardboard (OCC) 
Telephone DirKtorlcs 
Mixed paper 


23^12 

3,642 

319 

21,78* 


20,111 

3.102 

272 

18J55 


3J02 

540 

47 

3J31 


12331 

1,446 
115 


12.972 

1,497 

119 


8240 
6340 
7600 
1380 


16371 
1,967 

207 
2361 

2i'J06 


1/443 

171 

IS 

223 

ii'ss 


18.014 

2,138 

225 

2.7B4 

ajftb 


5398 

1304 

95 

19,002 

26500 


9 
2 

31 

42 


Suiiioiai (Paper) 
Claa 


7,034 


5,990 


1,043 


4419 


4/471 


70 30 


4J11 


367 


4,578 


2/156 


4 


TtnpUte Steel (ferrous) 
Aluminum (non-ierrousl 


5,175 
1J«3 


4.486 
1,177 


689 
205 








3,477 


274 


3.751 


2305 


5 




635* 


5.662 


894 


3.177 


3J89 


61 4U 


Plaalic 
PET 
HDPE 
aher PlasUc 


2B9 

490 

7JS9 


246 

41 S 

6,182 


43 

73 
1,076 


109 


113 

ii3 


83 40 
57 40 
15.10 


206 
240 
934 

ijiT9 


18 
21 
81 

iw 


223 

261 

1.015 

M» 


66 

230 

6J44 

63» 





to 

■" ii' 


Subtatiii (Plwiid 
Oi«aiilci 
FoodwaMea 

Yardwaale 


8.038 

3U51 
19.98) 


iio^ 


4.694 
4 i^ 


2.580 
■ 9.259 

lijex) 


3,040 
13,419 

i'MW 




21366 
I7i«3 

■39348 


U78 

1378 


23.443 

17.983 
41,426 


8,208 
1.998 

iolioi 


13 
3 

16 


WoodWHie 


1,130 


963 


168 


621 


621 




559 


62 


621 


509 


1 




2.135 


1,819 


317 


752 


752 




677 


75 


752 


133 


2 




3,768 


3J09 


559 














h 


3768 


6 


TcilllorLeat her/Rubber 


5,778 


4.921 


857 


1,639 


1A39 


7 40 


M7S 


164 


1.639 


4,139 


7 


Other 

StibMd (Wmi bilheii 


4,647 

i7;45e 


3,958 
14^69 


689 

2389 


439 

3,45i 


439 

3>51 




395 

S.IM 


44 

■345 


439 

3M 


4.208 


7 


Um 


23 


TOTAL 


140,07» 


11I,34« 


17,731 


M.W? 


4X370 




73.«7 


4.iJ9 


TTMi 


6ZJ13 


100 



Reeidenlial Divenlon • S6% 



2 
la: 



1) Con^nktoa fltmu hoed on EmI Y«* 4rti fmir -RoldMHal W.b Conporilton Sudy, Vol I of the Oi««lo W-t. C«,p. Snriy", Core* Sorri, Ltd., I.n/»l (r.d. y.nl w««e). 

2) Yinl WiM Onr. jenmaed) dau (nifn "nx Phykil uid Bmiank: DUwnilon. a( Munldpil Solid WiMe In OrtuV, OEMHJII &». Ud,. Nov/«l 

4) ItelMlvi pbitki CDOipoaltkifi bued M BedL<« iL 1M2 

5) HouHhold data pnMdad by Kudy 9uv«H>n k AhscIiIm, 1 W4 

6) DlvnUon d«i piwldtd by Reglcn of Duiham Worlu DcpaRRant. IMl 

Tl Nunter of twdiyard mrpoMen piovtdtd by Region sd IXirtumSun, I9M 

I) Hourhokix S-F - W.2W; Smi/Town/IUw - 22.767; Low RlH - »,S21; M-F ■ 1 1,27S. Mole Ihri S.ml/TowB/Ro« iadud«! wah S^F; Low RlK t-vcluded with MF (or thta .i..ly.ll. 

9) R»(il » CMpHr4 to genml MMinpttoM; dupter 5 (or Riglon o< Dur)uin •peclllc ■■umplloni. 



it 

*^ 5 






I 



S3 



Tabic 1.6 

Mixed Waste Proce«aing Syitcm 

Region of Duitiam 



C««p«niMil 


.tc*t4entU 

WM**C«Mr«*M( 

JUlHIild. 


Rca. Df versWm 

(tonnes) 

Cxtat/Camm 

■i.B.Y.Conpo«. 


heai^Hai 

Wa«lt 

UmdiaiMt 

(tomari 


fesRacydlnc 

inMSW 

rrootaalng 


MSWplna 

E/C 
tMvcralon 

ItOtllMS) 


RccoveMd 

for CompoaUng 

InMSW 


&C pitta 
CempoeHng 
OandHBeifi 


ex; pitta 


llefUM 

9ealt»UndfiU 

«ro«i MSW 

n«c«a*titg 


Total Reaidcntul Wule (tonnes) 


140,078 


49,822 


90,256 














Paper 

Newspaper 

Corrugated cardboard (OCC) 

Telephone Directories 

Mixed paper 


a612 

' 3,642 

319 

21,786 


12,972 

1,497 

119 


10,640 3,192 

2,145 1,073 

200 100 

21,786 2,179 


16,164 

2,570 

219 

2,179 


m 

■ M 

16,666 


19,330 

3,026 

262 

10,512 


22,495 

3,481 

304 

18,645 


1,117 

m 

2,941 


Subtotal (Paper) 


49,360 


14,588 


34,772 


6,544 


21,132 


23,994 


33,129 


45,126 


4,234 


Claw 


7,034 


4,471 


2,562 


512 


4,984 





4,984 


4,984 


2,050 


TinplaleSted (ferrous) 
AluDunum (non-ferrous) 

Subtotal Metal (cannln^cdl 


5,175 
1 ,382 
6,556 


3,289 


3,267 






2,149 






5,438 


9 






5,438 



5,438 



1,118 


Plaalic ^ 

PET 

HOPE 

OthirPUsbc 


289 
490 

7,259 


113 


177 

490 

7,259 


177 

123 




289 

123 






i 




289 

123 




289 

123 





368 

7,259 


Subtotad IPlaaticI 


8,038 


H3 


f 7,925 


299 


412 





412 


412 


7,626 


Oiynica 

Food wastes ' 

Yard waste 


31,651 
19,981 


8,286 
15,624 


23J64 
4357 






8,286 
15,624 


19,860 
3,92! 


18,216 
17,584 


28,146 
19,545 


3,505 
436 


Subtotal (Organks) 


Sl>32 


23,910 


27,721 





23,910 


23,781 


35,801 


47,691 


3,940 


Wood Waste 


1,130 


621 


509 





621 


51 


646 


672 


458 


Conatnictton/DcnoliHoit Waste 


2,135 


752 


1,383 





752 


138 


821 


890 


1,245 


Diapoaable Diapers 


3,768 




3,768 

















3,768 


Teitilca/Lcathcr/Kubbcr 


5,778 


1,639 


4,139 


414 


2,053 





2,053 


2,053 


3,725 


Other 


4,647 


439 


4,208 





439 





439 


439 


4,208 


Subteiiai tWoed - Other) 


17,458 


3,451 


14,007 


414 


3,865 


189 


3,959 


4,054 


13,404 


TOTAL 


i4a,P7a 


49,822 


90,256 


*,919 


5».740| 


47,965 


83,723 


107,7DS 


32473 




Diversion • 


36% 






43% 




60% 


77% 





Notes: (Exiatlng/Commillcd + BYC) (otinp«t landfltltd) (»mpHinuilt*itdl 

11 Composition HUmlUt l>H*d on Eul York dm trom Itnldcntial Waste Composilion S(ud)r. Vol I of th< Onlino Waste Comp. Study", Corr * Storrit l.ld . |>n/91 (cud. jiird nm**). 
J) Viid WmU (comp gnifritcd) d*l« 6om The Ph^il and Economic Dimtnsjon) o( Municipal Solid Waste in OnUrio", CK2Mttlli Eng Ltd , Nov/9] 

3) Whit* Coodi (comp. gcnnatcd) tMinuK (inchldfd In Tinplat* S*t\ lolal) from "Roidrnlial Wasit Comp. Study, Vol. I of Ihi Ontario W*jt« Comp. Study", C * S Ltd., 1990 • 

4) RriaUvt piMtics composiUon baaad on Beck rt il, 1992 

I) Household data provided by Hardy Stevenson A AsBOCiiln, Wi . 

6J Diventon data provided by Rcgian of Durham Works [Apartment 1993 ' . 

7) Number o( backyard compoalen provided by Region of Durham S*«lf, 1 993 

I) Households: S-F - 97,J«; Seml/Town /Row - 2i767; Low Rise - 9,521 ; M- F 1 1,275 Nole thai Semi / Town/ Row incJuded with S- P; Low Rise included with M-F for Qiij anaJy^ij 

9) ReferloChapl»r4(Drgenerala5Jumplions;Chaplef 5 for Region of Durham specific assumptions 



Ci 



3 Pn 
Si. 

II 

ll 



Table 1.7 



S 

^ 



£9Hiiut«d Residential VVisle Crnenition, Divcnion and DiipoMl Requirements 
For Six RciidenKa I Systems 

Region of Durham 



■"Yiii' 


Ontario. 


)UM«rtU 


'«iHilC^ 


io»«t 


8>kli« 


Wane 


^6» 


WaM* 


bk.^OSt 


W«t. 


E>p.»l 


' Wsatt 


WH/t>lf 


t4.M« 


MlwdWaaltrKK. 


Wtatt 




WMto - 




t*«WMlM 


SyMMi 


laqatriai 


ST#rti 


ll«|aiflai 


S^Mt. 


^M,, 


Sjrt«a 


R«|-bla( 


Sj*r- 


K«|.lril« 


SriMiDivnalni 


H«4alriatSI«p««at 








1«) 


ttouMat 


OtnotM 


Dltpoaal 


Dimnon 


Dl*p«aat 


Dlvcnkn 


Dtor«aal 


Dlnnloa 


Okpoaat 


piv^wuR 


ttkroMi 


<tonH9i) 


(toaaa^ 




m 


tkmmmtm 






(loaan) 


dniMs) 


(teaaca) 


(loaiw* 


(toaacat 


floMual 


(tDiian> 


(tniaea) 


tlonta) 


«im*<a) 


Oewl 


Oilih) 


(hnr) 


Oilih) 








26* 




30* 




43* 




44* 




56* 




60* 


77* 






199t 


472^82 


IS5.8B6 


1.4% 


2,1*9 


41,161 


1 12356 


47,152 


106,565 


67,168 


86350 


68,790 


84,928 86,652 


67,065 


93.171 


119,8*0 


60346 


33.857 


1997 


486,175 


160,438 


1.7* 


2,790 


4Z363 


115,285 


48329 


109,119 


69.129 


8831 9 


70,798 


86.849 89.182 


68,4*5 


95.892 


123.3*0 


61,756 


34.288 


1998 


500J7D 


165,122 


21* 


3,446 


43,600 


118,076 


49.946 


111,731 


71,147 


90329 72.8*5 


88.811 


1 91,78* 


*9,e9o 


98.691 


126,9*1 


62.985 


34.715 


1999 


514980 


169,943 


24« 


4,138 


44.873 


120,933 


51.404 


114,402 


73.225 


92381 


74.993 


90.813 94,466 


71.339 


101373 


130,**a 


64,233 


35.137 


2000 


530,017 


174,906 


28% 


4,867 


46.183 


123.856 


52,905 


117,134 


73,363 


94.676 


77.183 


92.856 


97,225 


7Z814 


104339 


134,484 


65300 


35355 


7001 


545,493 


180,013 


3.1% 


5.635 


47,533 


126.846 


S4.450 


119,928 


77363 


96.814 


79.436 


94,941 


100.064 


74.314 


107391 


138,411 


**.786 


35,967 


2002 


561.420 


185,269 


3 5* 


6,444 


48,919 


129,905 


56,039 


12Z785 


79,828 


98.997 81,75* 


97,0*9 


1 02.985 


75,839 


110,733 


14^452 


68.092 


36J73 


2003 


577,813 


190,678 


38* 


7,296 


50,348 


133.035 


57,676 


125,707 


82,159 


101.224 


84,143 


99.240 


105,992 


77,391 


113,96* 


I4«,«1I 


69,417 


36,771 


2004 


594,684 


196.246 


42* 


8,191 


51,818 


136.237 


59,360 


128.695 


B43S8 


103,497 


S6,6M 


101.455 


109,087 


7B,9*8 


117,293 


150,892 


70,76! 


37,163 


3005 


612,048 


201,976 


43* 


9.133 


53,331 


139312 


61,093 


131,750 


87,027 


106,816 


89,128 


103,715 


112,272 


80,571 


120.718 


155,298 


7Z1K 


37345 


2006 


629,919 


207,873 


4.9* 


. 10,123 


54,888 


142.863 


•62,877 


1HB74 


89368 


108,183 


91.731 


106,020 


115350 


82,200 


124,243 


159,832 


73308 


37.918 


2007 


640,312 


211943 


5.2* 


11.162 


56,491 


146.290 


64,713 


138,068 


92.183 


110398 


94.409 


10ej72 


118.924 


83,85* 


127,871 


1*4.499 


74,910 


38J81 


2008 


667,241 


220,190 


56* 


12.254 


58,140 


149,795 


66.602 


141,313 


94.874 


113,0*1 


97,166 


110,770 


IZ2J97 


8S,S39 


131.604 


1*9,302 


76J31 


3«.tM 


2009 


686.724 


226,619 


59* 


13.400 


59.838 


153 J81 


68347 


144,672 


97.645 


115374 


100.0Q3 


113,21* 


125.971 


87.248 


135,447 


174,24* 


77.772 


38,973 


20tO 


706.775 


2U,236 


6 3* 


14,«)3 


61,S8S 


157.048 


;d348 


148,085 


100.496 


118,137 


102,923 


115,711 


129,*49 


88,985 


139.402 


179,333 


79.231 


39J00 


2011 


727,412 


240,046 


6.6* 


15.864 


63,383 


1*0,799 


72,608 


151,574 


103.430 


120,752 


105.928 


118.254 


133.434 


90,748 


143,472 


184,570 


80,710 


39,612 


2012 


748,651 


247,055 


70* 


17,186 


65,234 


■ 64.635 


74,728 


155,140 


106.450 


123.418 


109,021 


120,848 


137330 


92,538 


147,661 


189,959 


82.207 


39.910 


2013 


770,511 


254,269 


73* 


18373 


67.139 


168357 


76,910 


158,786 


109358 


12«,138 


112.204 


123,492 


141340 


94,356 


151,973 


195,505 


83,723 


40.190 


2011 


793,009 


261,693 


77* 


20,025 


69,099 


172369 


79,15* 


1*2,512 


112,757 


1 28.91 1 


115,480 


126,188 


145,4*7 


9t,201 


15«.410 


201,214 


85,257 


40,454 


2015 


816,163 


269,334 


8.0* 


21347 


71,117 


176,671 


81,4*7 


166.320 


116,050 


131,738 

1 1 


118,852 


128,935 


149,714 


98.073 


1*0,977 


iSff,<m 


ei.RIO 


4a.«»s 


Total 




4,1 H7» 




208^$ 


1,097,041 


xutjuy 


U«,ro» 


16*9,179 


1,790,175 


2,155,711 


1.BM,406 


2,112.482 


1309,489 


1,U6;»9 2.4U,Z29 


3,194,547 


1,ti2,iJf 


751>tl 



NoIm: 

(1)FopjlMk>nd«tlfn>BiDuTtuinR^;kmklOftvuirUll<|l*ppii 9yP-120X urtvpoUlMlutii wppU^d by llArtfy Slrvrni 
(J) Population profectun muhiitlMd by DJ3 tonna/capfiii/ynr (Inwd on KHipncil dali) 



■ nd AMDCUtf*. 1994 



I 






u 

^^ 

2.5 
n ft 



SCHEDULE J 
METRO TORONTO ESTIMATES 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table ).l 

Emitting Syalcm 

MetropoliUn Toronto 



Cmh^vmiM 


19« 


S-FHMdi 


M>FHMda 


INvmte 

(tMaM> 
1991 


XMfaUtkl 

WaataLMdfllM 

(bjrdtffntnce) 

1992 


otrntpomd 

« 


Total Roidailul Wuie (tonnes) 


1,069,790 


594,768 


475J)22 


201,177 


868,613 




P.p« 

Ncwspiper 

Comig»t«d cardboard (OCC) 

Telephone Ditectories 

Mixed paper 


191,573 

29.551 

3,176 

176.166 


97,766 

15,081 

1,625 

89,900 


.93307 

14.470 

1,551 

86,268 


57,995 
2.786 
1,098 


133,578 

26,765 

2.078 

176.168 


15 
3 

20 


Subtotal (Paper) 


400.4«e 


204 J72 


196.096 


61379 


338,589 


39 


Claaa 


57,064 


29,122 


27,942 


23,789 


33.275 


4 • 


Tin^latc Steel ((erroua) 


40268 


21,806 


18.462 


1SJ14 


21.954 


3 


Alnnimmi (non-fcnoaa) 


11,209 


5,720 


5.489 


387 


10.822 


1 


Plaalic 
PET . 

HOPE 
Other Plastic 


2M8 

3,978 

58390 


1.198 

2,030 

30,054 


1,150 

1,948 

28337 


635 

1,141 


2,«S7 

58,890 




Snbtotil (Plaitic) 


6Wi'6 


33,282 


31,934 


1,776 


63.440 


7 


Organic* 
Food wastes 
Yard waste 


256,789 
97,134 


131,048 
97,134 


125.741 



12,067 
76,740 


244,722 
20,394 




Subtotal (dripinkiii 


353,«3 


228,182 


125,741 


88307 


265,116 


31 


Wood Waste 


9,171 


4,680 


4,491 




9,171 




Constniction/DemoliHsn Waste 


17J23 


8,841 


8,483 


1.500 


15,823 




Disposable tHapcrs 


30,570 


15,601 


14,969 




30,570 




Teitiles/ Leather/Rubber 


46,874 


23,921 


22,953 




46,874 




Other 


37.703 


19,241 


]8,4«2 


4,725 


32,978 




Subtotal <Wood - Other) 


141,641 


72J84 


69357 


6,225 


135,416 


"16 


TOTAL 


1,069,790 


5M,7M 


475,022 


201,177 


8««,613 


100 






ResidentUl 


Diversion ■ 


19% 







Notes: 

1) Compwlion atiuuln b»d «i East York d.t> from 'Rssidsntial Wist* Cbmposltiiin Sbdy, Vol. I o( l)» Onlarto Wi«* Comp. Study", Cor* 4 Storric Ud Jan/M («d. ji^ waste). 

3) Ysrd Want (comp. gmcntsd) data from -Hi* Phjnicil and Economic Dlmcniiana o( MunldpsJ Solid Waste in Otifcrto", CH2MHiU Eng. Ltd., Nov/»l 

3) WWt» Goods (comp. gmcnlcd) tMtmats (Includtd Ir Tinplatc Stwl lonil from -Raidenlul Wntt Comp. Study, Vol. I o( ft* Ontario Wim Comp. Study", C 4 S Ud., 19W 

4) Rtlidvi plastic* compoution Iwed on BkIi *t al, 1992 

5) HsuHhold diu provided by Haitiy St*v*luoil 4 Associates, 1994 

bi [^vdwon tsbmam from 1992 Mrtro Work* Annual Report: personal communicilicn with A. Nands - M*tra Works (|un«/93) 

7) Number of backyud composten provided by Metro staff, 1 993 

8) HouKholds: S-F-r»9J30;S«Bi/Toi«i/Row-lS«JSl;Low Rat- 112X57; Vt-F - 31SJ83. Not* that S*mi/Town/Ro- included with S-F; Uw Rjs* mdud«i with M-F for this analysis. 

9) Rfftr to Chapter 4 for general iBumpttofi*; Chapter b tor Metro ip«nfic Hsumpiions. 



May 1994 



Page J- 1 



WniUry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table J^ 

Exttting/CoDuniHed Syalein 

MetTopolitan Toronto 



Cmiwimlll 


Waato^Canvakd 

i9n 


Waala 
Gmantod 
5-FHMd 


M-FHiiN 


RftHmltil 

Olvafiloti 

(toaneal-lftZ 

Std. Blue Box 


Tirt.1 
tNvMXon 

EdiVCen 
(tomcat 


K«i4niltat 

WaatoLaidAlltd 

tbydlffamtri 


ofPlapoaod 
Wwto 


Total Residential Waste (tonnes) 


1,069790 


.594,768 


475xai 


201,177 


221354 


847,936 




Paper 

Newspaper 

Corrugated cardboard (OCC) 

Telephone Directories 

Mixed paper 


191373 

29351 

3,176 

176,168 


97,766 

15,081 

1,625 

89,900 


93.807 

14.470 

1351 

86,268 


57.995 
2,7B6 
1.098 


63,951 

3,040 
U12 
3300 


127,622 

26312 

1,964 

172368 


15 

3 

20 


Snbtotal (Paper) 


400,468 


204372 


196,096 


61,879 


71,703 


328,766 


39 


ClaH 


57,064 


29,122 


27,942 


23,789 


26,183 


30381 


4 


TInplatc Steel (femnis) 


40,268 


21306 


18,462 


18314 


19,981 


20,287 


2 




11J09 


5,720 


5,489 


387 


422 


10,787 


1 


Plastic 
PET 
HOPE 
Ottier Plastic 


2348 
3.978 

58,890 


1,198 

2,(B0 

30,054 


1,150 

1,948 

1 28337 


635 
1,141 


697 

1752 



1,651 

2,726 

58390 




Subtotal (Plastic) 


65,216 


33,282 


31.934 


i.776l 


1,949 


63,267 


7 


Organic* 

Food wastes 
Yard waste 


256,789 
97.134 


131,048 
97,134 


125,741 



12,067 
76,740 


14,078 
81,425 


■ 242,711 
. 15,709 


■- 


SitbtoUl (Oiganlcs) 


353,923 


228,182 


125,741 


88,807 


95303 


2SB'.42i 


30 


Wood Waste 


9,171 


4,680 


4,491 







9,171 




Construction/Demolition Watle 


17323 


8341 


8,483 


130O 


1,122 


16,201 




CHspoaabla DIapcn . 


30370 


15.601 


14,969 







3037D 




Tcxti leWLcadiCT/Kabbcr 


46374 


23.921 


22,953 







46374 




Other 


37,703 


19,241 


18,462 


4,725 


4,992 


32.711 




Sabtolal (Wood - Other) 


141,641 


72,284 


69357 


6,225 


6,114 


1353Z7 


16 


TOTAL 


1,069,790 


594,768 


475,022 


H)1,I77 


Z213H 


847,936 


!(» 



Rcstdcnlial Divcrrion = 21% 

Notes: 

1) Compoutaon cUiinila bacd on Eul Y«k dmlM fniin 'KiudntuI VViatl Compaition Stwly. Vol. [ c4 IhtOnUiw Watt Comp. Study*. Cora It Storrii Ltd., |an/91 (act. yard wwtc). 

2) Ysrd WHto {cnnp. gtii cnl t d l daU (torn 'TYi* Phyikal (mJ EconomK Diimknii of Municipal Solid Waite in Ontario*, OUMHill Eng. Ltd., Nov/91 

3) WtiUtCoodi (cimp. gnwratad) atinak (includtd In Tinplali SMel (Dial) from 'RaalRvlial Warn Comp. Study, Vol. I of the Ontario Wiik Comp, Study*. CAS Ltd.. 1990 

4) RalatiM plaUc* compaaitian tiaifd on Back at al, 19^ 

SI Houaclwld data providad by Hardy StrvatiHti h AModatr*. 1994 

6> Divan UTV^ti mate* from 1992 Irfrto^ WortL* Annual Report pmonal communication widi A. Nanda - Mrtro Works (June/93) 

71 Nuirinr of backyard eompoatan providad by Metro ataH, 1993 

m Houacholda: S-F-1S9,J30; Semi/ Town/ Row- 1S8JS1; Low Riae- 112,067; M-F-3lS,2n. Note that Semi/Town/Row indudtd with S-F; Low Riac included with M-F for thia analyiii 

9) Refp to Chaplrf 4 for gBietaiaatumpHofu; Chapter 6 for Metro (pacific aaaumpliona. 



May 1994 



Page J -2 



Ministrv of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysts - Service Technical Appendix 



Tabic ) J 

Direct Cott Syttein 

M«tn>poHlaii Toronto 



C««pOMSt 


iU*U«irtiBl 
WMl*C«Mni*d 

(IMMS) 


lUsUeBhat 
Wasit 

S-FHhldt 


M-FHMds 


iTiWnvft 


lUaidcnHal 
DWmion 

Ekktte^ 
Conmltttd 


Qoiata 

Oqrt»t 

Raits 


T«l^ 
I>h*m(«n 


laMUflM 

(tMinM> 


% 


Total Rcsidcntul Waste (toniws) 


1,069,790 


594,768 


475,022 


201,177 


221,854 




313,733 


756,057 




P«p*r 

Newspaper 

Corrugated cardboard (OCC) 
Telephone Directories 
Mi»ed paper 


191,573 

29351 

3,176 

176,168 


97,766 

15,081 

1,625 

89,900 


93,807 

14,470 

1451 

86,268 


57,995 
2,786 
1,098 


63,951 
3,040 
1,212 
3JO0 


82.4 
■63.4 

76.0 


101,220 

10,543 

1,627 

3.S00 


90352 
19,008 

U50 
172,668 


12 
3 

23 


SubloUl (Paper) 


400,468 


204372 


196,096 


61.879 


71,703 




116390 


283.S78 


37 


Clau 


57,064 


29,122 


27,942 


23,789 


26,183 


70.3 


28,932 


28,132 


4 


Tinplate Steel (ferreual 


40,266 


21,806 


18,462 


18314 


19,981 


64.5 


20320 


19,748 


3 


AlominuBi (non-ferroni) 


11,209 


5,720 


5,489 


387 


422 


41.0 


2,482 


8,727 


1 


PlasHc 

PET 
HOPE 
Other Plastic 


2,348 

3,978 

58,890 


1,198 

2,030 

30,054 


1,150 

1,948 

28,837 


635 
1,141 


697 
1,252 




83.4 

57.4 


1,224 
1,570 




1,123 

2,408 

58,890 




Subtotd (Plartic) 


65216 


33J82 


31,934 


1.776 


1,949 




2,794 


62,422 


8 


Or^nici 

Food wastes 
Yard waste 


256,789 
97,134 


131,048 
97,134 


125,741 



12,067 
76,740 


14,078 
81,425 




48.580 
87,421 


208.209 
9,713 




Subtotal (Organical 


353,923 


228,182 


125,741 


88.807 


95,503 




136,001 


217.922 


29 


Wood Waal* 


9,171 


4,680 


4,491 












9,171 




Conatniction/Dcnolilion Waste 


17323 


8,841 


8,483 


1,500 


1,122 




1,122 


16,201 




Disposable Diapers 


30570 


15,601 


14.969 












30.570 




Tea tUea/ Leather /Kubber 


46,874 


23,921 


22,953 












46,«74 




Other 


37,703 


19,241 


18,462 


4.725 


4,992 




4,992 


32,711 




SubteuK Wood - Other) 


141,641 


72,284 


69357 


6J25 


6,114 




6,114 


135 J27 


18 , 


TOTAL 


1,(»9,7W 


$94,768 


47S.0Z2 


201,177 


221^S4 




313,733 


7S«^S7 


100 



RHidcntial Divvnion ■ 29% 
Notca: 

1 ) CompcHition catinum baiKl on East York dati from "Rntdt^tul Wist* CompcmitJon Studjr, Vol. I of th« Onurio Waste Comp. Study', Coiv 4 Storhr Lid , |*n/91 (<itcL yird wai(c). 
2} Yjrd Wuto(connp. gnwraud) d<U from The PhyiicalandEcononiicDimMuiofuof Muntcipal Solid Wmu in Onuho", CH2MHl1I Erg. Ltd.^ Nov/91 

3) White Goodi (c«np. gvncratfd) ettimabt (indud«d in Tinplate Sl«tl toUl) from "R«9id*ntul Wutc Comp. Study, Vol. I of th« OnUno Wait* Comp Study", C fr S Ltd., 1990 

4) RvJjtiw pluCia compotition bucd on fieck tt aL 1992 

5) Houwhold djU provided by Hardy Stovenaon h Aaaociatcs, 1 944 

6) Diversion ndmatcs from 1992 Metro Works Annual Report; pe nonaJ communtcabon with A. Nanda - Metro Works (June/93). 
7} Number ol backyard composters provided by Metro staffs 1993. 

S» Houwholdi: S-F - 2S9J30; Semi/Town/ Row - ISS^Sl; Low Rise- 112.[}57;M-F - 315J83. Note that Semt/Tawn /Row included with S^F; Low Rise included with M-F for this ana lyM ' 
9} Refer to Chapter 4 for i^eraJ asaufflptions; Chapter 6 lor Metro specific issumptiora. 



May 1994 



Page J -3 











Tabic J.4 

Expanded Blue Box Syatem 

Metropolitan Toronto 








\ 








mmnt 


RMidcnUal 

Wt«4« 

S-FMild* 


tteddcndal 

W«*t« 
C«Mnltd 
MFHbMa 


[NranhM 

$ld.BlMBM 


Talil 

Dhmtoa 
(EriiWCMMO 


Caplun 

(«» 
Qvinic 


(tonne*) 

Exp.BB 

S-FHhlda 


ttca-Div. 
(taWMll 

£ip.BB 
M-FHkMi 


R««M«Btlal 

Ditmion 
HhMt 


Rnid4ntUl 

WaMUuidfiUcd 

(b^^lffMnCi) 


CoMpodMoB 

Waale 

% 




Total Rciklcnliil Waste (tonnn) 


1,069,790 


594,768 


475,022 


201,177 


231,854 




268,971 


82,993 


351,864 


717,926 






Papn 

N«w*p*p« 

Corrugated cardboard (OCC) 
Tel«phonf Dtrrctorin 
Minrd pap" 

SubVoiai"iraiM9r) 


191,573 

29,551 

3.176 

176,168 


97.766 

15.081 

1.625 

89.900 


93.807 

14,470 

1,551 

86,268 

i96'.'6% 


57.995 
2,786 
1,098 

6i:«79 


63,951 
3.040 
U12 
3,500 

7i',763 


824 
634 

. 76.0 
138 


B0359 
9.561 
1,235 

12,406 
i63,762 


.38,648 

4.587 

589 

5.952 

49:777 


119,207 

14.148 

1,824 

18359 

i'53;5a9 


72365 

15,409 

13S2 

157.810 

246:929 


10 
2 

22 

34' 




400,468 


204,372 




Claaa 


57,064 


29,122 


27,942 


23.789 


26,183 


70J 


20.473 


9,822 


30J94 


26,770 


4 




TInplata Slccl ((crrMil 


40,268 


21,806 


18,462 


18314 


19,981 


64.5 


14,065 


5,954 


20,019 


20,249 


3 






11,209 


5,720 


5,489 


387 


422 


410 


2345 


1,125 


3,471 


7,739 


1 




Pliatic 

PET ■ ' 

HOPE 

OOwrPiasbc 

Sybioiaj (Flaitici 


2,348 

58,890 

65ii"6 


1,198 

2,030 

30,054 

33:282 


1.150 

1.948 

28,837 

31,934 


635 
1,141 

1,776 


697 

1J52 




834 
57.4 
15.1 


999 
1,165 
4,538 

6,7(B 


479 

559 

2,177 

3.216 


1,479 
1,724 
6,715 
9,918 


869 

2.254 
52,175 

55^98 


"b" 


- 


1,949 






Oifwiki 
Food wastes 
Yard wast* 


256,789 
97,134 


131,048 
97,134 


125,741 



no67 

76,740 


14,078 
81,425 




32,926 
81,425 


11,538 


44,465 
81,425 


212324 
15,709 






Subtotal (Orginical 


353,923 


228,182 


125,741 


88,807 


95303 




114351 


11338 


125,889 


228,034 


32 




Wood Waal* 


9,171 


4,680 


4,491 















9,171 






Ci>iM(nKt«ona>rawlllion Waatc 


17J23 


8,841 


8,483 


1,500 


1.122 




1,010 


112 


1.122 


16,201 






Dl>p«abl* Dtapna 


30370 


15,601 


14,%9 















30.570 




Ci 


Tcxtllca/Lcattwr/RHbbn 


46,874 


23.921 


22,953 







74 


1,770 


849 


2,619 


44,255 




2 


Oiha 

Subioiiaj iW»d diiini 


37,703 
141,641 


19,241 

72j!84 


18,462 

69ji5'7 


4.725 

6,225 


4,992 
6,ii4 




4,493 

'7i73 


499 
1.461 


4,992 

B,™ 


32,711 




^ 




132,908 


19 


Ministry of Environment and 
s Analysis ~ Service Technical Ai 


TOTAL 


l,OM,790 


»4,7M 


475,012 


101,177 


21MS4 




268,971 


82,893 


3S1,H4 


717,92* 


100 


Rcaidcniial Divrrdoti c 
Nolw 

2) Yard WatK (camp. gnoraMI daU Irani 111* Phyiltal and Eawmk DitnmioM of Mutildpd SoUd VVaik in Onlarto-, CtUMHIII Eng Ltd., Nov/9 1 

3) White Cwdt (csmp. ftmtMtd) oliinil* (includsl in Tinplatt Sted lo4aJ) from 'Rnidrnlii 1 V/utt Comp Study, Vol. 1 cW t)i(Ontirlii Wmr Cotnp Study', CkS Ud . 1 990 

4) RrUliv* plHtin ronpoailiDn baHd ofl B«k t< (L im 

5) HouHhold dtU pfevid«l bjr Hudy Strvciwn h A«odals. 19M 

fr) Divcrtion MhmAtH from 1992 Mclm Work* Annual Rtporl; pciwjnil eDmrtiunit»tKir\ wilh A N^ndM ■ Mrtro Workj (1um/93), +. 

7) Nurnbft at bicliyiid compulrn pn>vid<d by Urtra lUH, 1 W3 

m tloutcholdi: S-f • 2»»JM; S»mi/Town/llow . 15»J51; Low Ri»e • 112;057. M-F- 31SJ8.1 Ntrtr tKil S»mi/ Fown/Kow includid wilhS-F, Ijjw Rim imiudrd wilh M Ffor ihnnjlyiii, 

9) R«frr 1o OuptcT 4 for general Ml umpHont; QiaptCf 6 for Mriroiprcific juumptions. 


»% 




* 



■!3 



TibleJJ 

W«t/Diy System 

M«tR>polilan Toronlo 



.,-;:- rt; -^.,V ;.l. 




HcaldwnHal 




T«4s4 


Captue 


Ret. Div. 


RehDiV. 




RMldatUaJ 


Cbnpoilttoii 




WMHOwaaalwl 


WHie 


Waste 


Diventoti 


lUddeirtial 


Halt 


llMinaal 


4toiuica> 


Divcnwii 


WaataLandfllM 


af01ap«aad 






IIMMM) 


Gtnafttad 


Cencnled 


(lonacat-l*n 


Dlventon 


(%> 


WeWDiy 


WtVDiy 


AU 


(by dJfffiiEnBA) 


Waaic 






ifn 


S-FHhlda 


M-F Hhlda 


Std. BIm Box 


(ExtatCooian) 


Qntnle 


S-FHhlda 


M-FHhIda 


HUda 


19*1 


% 




Total RaklmtUl Wast* (tonnn) 


1,069,790 


594,768 


475,022 


201,17?! 221,854 




346,879J 121,651 


468330 


60130 




P.pir 
Newspaper 


191,573 


97,766 


93,807 


57.995 


63.951 


824 


80559 


38.648 


119,207 


72J65 


12 




Comigatad cardlnard (OCC) 


29.SS1 


15,081 


14,470 


2.786 


3.04C 


634 


9.561 


4.587 


14,148 


15,403 


3 






3.176 


1.625 


1,551 


1.098 


1.212 


760 


1.235 


589 


1,824 


1352 






Mixed paper 


176,166 


89,900 


86,268 




3,500 


13 8 


12,406 


5,952 


18359 


157,810, 


26 




Subtotal <P*p*f) 


«n,4«8 


204372 


196,096 


61,B7« 


71,703 




103,762 


49,777 


153339 246,929 


4i 




Claaa 


57,064 


29,122 


27,942 


23,789 


26,183 


703 


20,473 


9322 


30,294 


26,770 


4 




TInpI'M 5^^ Ifnraua) 


40,268 


21,806 


18,462 


IS31* 


19,981 


645 


14.065 


5.954 


20,019 


20J49 


3 




AlamliHiin tnon-lcmaat 


11J09 


5,720 


5,489 


387 


422 


41 


2345 


1.125 


3.471 


7,739 


1 




PUalic 


























PET 


23« 


1,198 


1,150 


■m 


697 


834 


999 


479 


1.479 


869 






HDPE 


3,»78 


2,030 


1,948 


1,141 


1,252 


57.4 


1,165 


559 


1.724 


2,251 






Other PJastk 


xjmo 


30,054 


28337 







151 


4338 


2.177 


6715 


52,175 


....„ 




""'"S«btota'lfrtai«^^ 


6S,21« 


33:282 


31,934 


1.776 


1,949 




6703 


3,216 


9.918 


55J98 


9 




Offanics 

Food wastes 


256,789 


131,048 


125.741 


12,067 


14,078 




104438 


50,296 


155,135 


101,654 






Yard waste 


97,134 


97,134 





76,740 


Bl,«25 




87,421 




87,421 


9,713 







SubloUl (Organka) 


mm 


228,182 


125,741 


sHW 


95303 




,92J259 


5di96 


242355 


111368 


19 




Wood Waste 


9.171 


4.680 


4,491 















9,171 






ConstncttDnAJnnalltiofi Waalc 


17323 


8,841 


8,483 


1,500 


1.122 




IXIIO 


112 


1.122 


16,201 




s 


Dispoiabk ENaptra 


30370 


15,601 


14,969 















30370 






46,874 


23,921 


22,959 







7.4 


1770 


849 


2,619 


44,255 




^1 


Olber 


37,708 


19,241 


18,462 


4,725 


4,992 




4.493 


499 


4,992 


32,711 




'SubtiDMJtWaad'Othinfi 


141,641 


72,284 


69357 6J25 


6,114 




77i^ 


1,461 


8,733 


132,908 


22 


TOTAL 


1,069,790 S94,76S 


475,011 201,177 


UMH 




346J79 


121,651 


468^530 


Ml,2i0 


100 








Rnidential Diversion a 


44% 






Nolcc 
















1 .3 










!?«. 




4 Mu..ici|»l Said W«te KOnUrte-, CH3MH1U Ex«. Lid., No»/91 












^i 




idoiliil Wulf Camp Study. Vol. 1 al 


tfw OnUr^ Wttit Comp' Stud 


y-.GfcSLld. IWO 
























?i 


SI ll«.H)wld diU ptOVidriby H.ldy StoVtMHlk AlKKMM, l»t 
















U DivHuon ntuiuln inm 1*91 Mrtn> Watlu Aiuiuil Rfporl; pnionil nunmuriK jlio 


nwiIhA Nindi-MxmWorkaOunr 


/«>. 








■t 




lem aiui Energy 
Hnical Appendix 


7) NumlwiitbKkyaidcnnpadcnprovidxIbTMilraiUH. I9«3. 
















n HouM»»M.:S.F-2»J30;Sml/Ti>wn/ll(i»-lS»JSI-l^w«iK- 112,057: MF- 31 


S,2S3 NatolhalSrmi/ Town/Hem in 


-ludcd with S^F; t/)w Hi— i~lii 


tjrd witK M-F ior Ihifl ■nalytit- 










i». 


























t! 










. 



T<bJtJ.6 
Mixed Wutc PraceMiitg Syalcm 
. MetTopolilan Toronto 



) 
) 


COHWCBMHI 


Wail* 
Cwamad 

Qmom*) 


DImlBii 
Owmtt-lWIt 
«d,lliitB<« 


Total 
■aridcnilal 

lEidaVOnm) 


flauiw> 

EKirtKnmn 


KMldcntial 

UndHlM 

(tonnM) 


RccovcihI 

(orKctyding 

In MSW 

Praccaaln^ 


MSWplM 

BC 
Olvcnloii 
ftonnca) 


Kccoracd 

in MSW 
PraccaaiBi 


MSWpiHa 
WCftm 

OaMlftUcd) 


MSW pin 

C«MpoMil« 

(Mlfcllcd) 


lUridM 

tnUiHiaii 

tmnMSW 
rii*i*aa4i»^ 






Totil IMdcrtlil Wial« (lonno) 


imTSO 


201,177 


221^54 


248,125 


821. 665 
















Paper 

N*w*p*pa 

Conugiled c*rdbDard(OCC) 

TrkphoM Diredorln 

Mixed paper 

Subtoiid (Pip"' 


191 J73 

29,551 

3,176 

176,168 

4dd4M 


57,995 
2,786 
1,098 

61,879 


635151 
3,040 
1712 
3J00 

71703 


63,951 127,622 

li)2 1,964 
3J00 172,6*8 

71703 m7«* 


38786 
13756 
" 982 
. 17767 
69.791 


102,237 

16,295 

2,194 

20,767 

141,494 


75,935 

11767 

835 

132,091 

miiB 


140705 

21529 

2,611 

86J)13 

25iise 


178.172 

27,563 

3,029 

152358 

3*1,622 


13/400 

1588 

147 

23310 

"38^46 




cbM 


57»64 


23,789 


26,183 


26,183 


30.881 


6.176 


32JS9 





32359 


32JS9 


24705 




rmpbtcStadChiroiu) 


40,268 


18J14 


19,981 


l9iWi 


20787 


14701 


34,182 





34,182 


34.182 


6,086 




Aluminum fiwn-fnrDus) 


1U09 


387 


422 


422 


10,787 


5,393 


5,816 





5,816 


5,816 


5393 




PlHliC 

PET 
l£DPE 
CMher Plastic 


2348 

3,978 

58,8il0 


635 

1,141 


697 

1752 




697 



1.651 

2,726 

58.890 


U51 

682 



2J48 

1.934 






it 


2348 

. 1,934 




2348 

1,934 






2«S 

58,890 




SubiiiiiiPiiititJ 


65,216 


1,776 


1,949 


\$t9 


63767 


2332 


4,281 





4781 


4781 


60,»S 




Orgwiia 
Food wutcB 
Yird w*9lc 

SuMiiMlditaiidot) 


256789 

97,131 

35a>23 


12,067 
76,740 
88,807 


14,078 
81,425 
95^ 


40,349 
81/425 

121774 


216,440 

15,709 

232149 







40349 

S1J42S 
121,774 


183,974 
14,138 

mXii 


132336 

88/494 
226,M6 


224323 
95,5*3 

3\9jm 


32/46* 
1J71 

34JW7 




WoodWaati 


9,171 


■ 








9.171 





917 


459 


917 


8754 




ConitnKlhmrDemoUlion Waa«c 


17323 


1,500 


1,122 


1,122 


16701 


D 


1,122 


1>20 


1532 


2.742 


14381 




DiapoMblf DIapcn 


30^70 










30,570 

















30370 


e 


Talli«n.callKiat»btHr 


46,874 










46.874 


4,687 


4,687 





4,687 


4.687 


42,187 


Olh« 


37703 


4,725 


4J»2 


4J»2 


3271 1 





4,992 





4592 


4,992 


32711 


^ 




6,225 


6,114 


6,114 


13S.S27 


4,687 


10,801 


'2337 


12;070 


13339 


128303 


> ' 


TOTAL 1,0«,T» 


201,177 


ZilAi* 


14S,U5 


«21,«t5 1 02,5821 


3»,7D6 


4IO,77« 


»1,0M 


771,485 


1983W 


SI. 

If 


KMidciriUI DWtnicm - 13% Kai<MiiH<l Uivcnion > 33ik u« 
No,^ Ejiiit/Comn) « BYC MSW Dry Froc»«.ing (compact UmHiiicdl 

l)Con^>ol<llMi«lin*.ihurf™E-t Tori. d«.(n»1l«ld»i«iilW«.Comp«lllwSh«lr. Vol. lo(llicOBUhDWi«C^ yini wiitct . . 

J) Willi* Good. <imi»- »tfi»i»(«J) ■•iin^ Ondud^ ta TlnplJtt St«J toUl) (rom TtoUtotta 1 W.rt. Comp. Study, Vol. I oMht OM 

4) Relitlvt plaaHa camportlm l>M«l <Hi 8k» It <l IM2 

5) HnwhoU dau pnivldrd by HlRlr StcvniKiR 4 Amdaln, l»«4 

6) DIvtnloii Hllinus (mm 1»*I Mrtit. Woria Annuil RcpDit; fxixHuJ tonvrunicjllon wllh A Nind* ■ Mrtro Wort* Qunt/m. 
n Nunter c< bKkyird nmfnMtn pmvjdid by MWo (UH, 1M3. 

1) Hou»l»ldiS-F-M9J30;Snnl/Tl>wll/IUw-lWW1;Lo»'M«-lU057;M-F-31SJM. Nat. Ihil Sunl/Town/Row Inciudrd wIlKS-F, Low RIk Include with MF lor 11il..n.Iy.li 
9) R*(« to CKipttr 4 (or geiwril HKimptloin; CKipter » far Mrtnupidtk •WJOiplk.M. 


72* 





Tib k J. 7 



S 
^ 



EalimaUd RwidtiiKil W«l« G.nerttion, Divcnion ind Di»poHl Resuirem.nto 
For Si» Reridenlial Sy»lem» 

MelTopolilin Toronto 



1996 
1«7 
\Wt 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
20O4 
ZXS 
2006 
20O7 
20QR 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
20U 
2015 



Njwil«W««" 



0) 



Acmivm) tD 






Somtm 



Ital^MU »f— P>™<l«(»l 



Told 



2J4«,77» 
2J*U43 
2375,797 
2390,441 
2,405,175 
2,420W) 
1.431,741 
2,443,538 
2,455393 
2,4*7305 
2,479,274 
2,491302 
2303399 
2315334 
2327,737 
2340.000 
23S53«4 
2371,223 
23«*,978 
2,t02330 



1,]2«^4S3 
1,131397 
l,14a383 
1,147.412 
1,154.484 
1,161,600 
1,167,236 
l,17Z88e 
1.178389 
1.184306 
l,19a0S2 
1,195,825 
ljm,6Z7 
1J07,4S6 
U13.314 
1.219,200 
1,226,671 
1,234.187 
1,241,749 
1,249358 



23.74»,1M 



1.4» 
17% 
21* 

2.4% 
2.8% 
3.1% 
33% 
3.8% 
4.2% 
43% 
4 9% 
5.2% 
S6% 
59% 
63% 
6.6% 
7.0% 
7.3% 
7.7% 
8.0% 



15.672 
19.711 
23,799 
27,937 
32.125 
36363 
40,600 
44.876 
49.193 
53351 
57,950 
62391 
66373 
71397 
75,964 
80373 
85334 
90,149 
95,021 
99,949 



S p t t m 



thMM*> 



19% 



211,833 
213,138 
2U.4S2 
215,774 
217,104 
218,442 
219,502 
220,567 
221,637 
222,712 
223,793 
224.878 
225,969 
227,066 
228,1*7 
229,274 
230,679 
232,092 
233314 
234,915 



1,119,419 4.4«53» 



WmK 
1*^ (tiling 



898,948 
900,547 
902,131 
903,701 
905,255 
906,795 
907,134 
907,455 
907,758 
908,043 
908,309 
908,556 
908,784 
908,993 
909,183 
909,353 
910,658 
911,945 
913,214 
914.464 



Ea/Ctat 

Sfmtm 

DtrcniMi 

(tomM) 



21% 



233,605 
235,045 
236,493 
237,951 
239,418 
240393 
242,062 
243,23« 
244,417 
245,602 
246,794 
247,99! 
249,194 
250,403 
251,618 
252,839 
254388 
255,947 
257315 
299,093 



18.151J28 4,914303 



OoniHtt 



877,176 
878,641 
880,090 
881324 
882,942 
884343 
884374 
804,786 
884,979 
885,153 
885307 
885,443 
885359 
885,656 
885,732 
885.788 
886,949 
888,091 
889,214 
890317 



tHl.OM( 



tttll 



29% 



330351 
332387 
334,436 
336,497 
336371 
340,658 
342311 
343,971 
345,640 
347317 
349fl02 
350,695 
352396 
354,106 
355,824 
357350 
369,741 
361,945 
364.163 
366394 



17,tWJ*4 «,9t3.9SS 



WMt* 



780,430 
781,299 
781148 
782,978 
783,788 
784579 
784,326 
784061 
783,755 
783,438 
783,099 
78Z739 
782,357 
781,953 
781,526 
781,077 
781,596 
782,092 
782.566 
783.015 



iSA^JtU 



Eip-BI 
Dhracitott 



Hc^Blrini 
DbpoHi 
(leniwa) 



33% 



3703OI 
372,784 
375,082 
377394 
379,720 
382,061 
383,914 
385,777 
387,648 
389329 
391,419 
393318 
395,226 
397,143 
399,070 
401,006 
403,463 
405,935 
408,423 
410,925 



7,*103» 



740,280 

740,901 

741,501 

742,081 

74Z639 

743,176 

741722 

74Z24S 

741,747 

741,226 

740,682 

740,1 

739,528 

738,916 

738.280 

737621 

737,874 

738.102 

738,306 

738,484 



14,«OM28 



Wcl/D>r 
IHi' m l«» 



44% 



493,346 
496,387 
499,447 
502,525 
505,6B 
508,739 
511,207 
513,687 
516,180 
518,684 
521,200 
523,728 
526.269 
528,823 
531,388 
533,966 
537,238 
540,530 
543,842 
547,174 



103»9,»« 



l*|iililiiB 



617,435 
617.298 
617,13? 
616,9SC 
616,737 
616,496 
615,429 
614,335 
613,216 
6U071 
610,901 
609,706 
606,484 
607,236 
606,962 
604,661 
604.099 
603,506 
602.887 
602.236 



MiwdWiftcrrai:. 
SjftttaiDhMalMi 

(tOBlW*) 

<tD«l (H^> 



52% 



590,815 
594,457 
598.121 
601,807 
606,517 
609,249 
612,205 
615,175 
618,159 
621,158 
624,172 
627,200 
630,243 
633300 
636,372 
639,460 
643,378 
647320 
m,287 
655,278 



mU,7»5|l2^H,*73 



72% 



812348 
817355 
822393 
827,462 
8323*2 
837,694 
841,758 
845.842 
849.945 
854,069 
858.212 
862375 

870.763 
874.988 
879.232 
884.620 
890,040 
895,494 
900,981 



17,1I4,«R 



Wmu 



519,96* 
519.229 
518,4*3 
517,667 
516,842 
515,988 
514,431 
512,847 
5tlJ3* 
509397 
507,930 
506,234 
504311 
502,759 
500,977 
499,167 
497,959 
496,717 
495,442 
494,132 



10,162,094 



298,433 
296331 
294,190 
292,013 
289.797 
287343 
284378 
282,180 
279.450 
276.686 
2733« 
271,069 
266,194 
265J96 
262362 
259394 
256,717 
253,997 
25135 
248.426 



M9t074 



Notcc 



(1> PopuliUon <liO prq..red by Hemrni Consul ling Lid , H.rdy Slevmon & As»ci.t«, M.r 21 /94 
Q) Populibon proi«am multiplied by 0.48 lonn«/cipH./yMr Cbisrd on hisloncal d.la) 



CI 

I- 

-. a' 






ft S. 

II 
'I 



I 



SCHEDULE K 
REGION OF YORK ESTIMATES 



Ministry of Environmennuut Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - service Technical Appendix 



Tabic ICl 

Eid^ling SyM«fB 

Region of York, 1992 



c«ir«»t 


lta«Mt 


Wwta 

S-V Hilda 


WiriitaiHil 
. Vfmm 


Dhrmtai 

<tawin> 
1991 


mi 


% 


Total Raidoitul Wule (lonna) 


196,250 


176,896 


19352 


54,100 


142,150 




F*p«r 

News piper 

Comigiled cardbowd (CXTC) 
Telephone Directories 
Mixed paper 


32J99 

5.075 

367 

30,433 


29,078 

4,485 

324 

26,897 


3,822 

590 

42 

3,SM 


16,641 

677 

75 

69 


16,258 

4397 

292 

30364 


11 
3 

21 


SubtaUl (Paper) 


68,774 


60,785 


7.989 


'17,462 


51312 


36 


CUia 


9.800 


8,661 


1,138 


5,770 


4,030 


3 


rinpUtt SiccI (fcnona) 


7.238 


6,486 


752 


2,796 


4,442 


3 


Alnminain (non-fcrreai) 


1,925 


1,701 


224 


91 


1334 


1 


FlaaHc 

HOPE 
OherPbitic 


403 

683 

10,113 


356 

604 

8,939 


47 

79 

1,175 


282 

404 


122 

279 

10,113 





7 


Subtotal inaatkl 


11,200 


9^99 


1301 


686 


10,514 


7 


Organica 
Food wastes 
Yaid waste 


44,099 
28,890 


38,977 
28390 


5,123 



3338 
17371 


40,761 
11,019 


29 

8 


Subtotal (Orgnlcal 


72,969 


67367 


5,123 


21,209 


51,780 


36 


WeodWaMc 


1,575 


1392 


183 




1,575 


1 


Contmctian/DcnoliHon Waate 


2,975 


2,629 


346 




2,975 


2 


Diapoaabic Diapers 


5750 


4,640 


610 




5,250 


4 


Tcililes/Leathci/RDbbcT 


8,050 


7,115 


935 


61 


7,988 


6 


Other 


6,475 


5,723 


752 


6,025 


450 





Subtotal iWm - Odtcr) 


24,125 


21,499 


2326 


6,087 


18,238 


13 


TOTAL 


19«JS0 


17«49« 


19J5Z 


54,1IX> 


142,1 SO 


1Q0 



RcatdcnHal Divcraion ■ 28% 

Notaa: 

1] Compimilicni aatiinata baad on East York data from -Rndcndil Waste Compoalten Stodjr, Vol. I e< the Ontario Wait* Comp. Study", Core * Stonii Ltd , \tnm (ncl. yard wasW. 

2] Yard Wmk (amp. generatid) data fiom Tit* PliyiicaJ and Ennwmic DUnansona o< Municipal Solid Wasta in Ontario', CK2MKUt Eng. Ltd ^ Nov/91 

3) Whilt Goods (nrap. gnwraled) MUmak (iKluded in Tinplatt SKd total) from 'RaiUenlial Waatc Conip. Study, Vol. I of the Ontario Wat* Comp. Study', C ft S Lid, 1990 

41 RdatinplaallaconpesitiDnbaad on Back MaL 1992 

SI HsiwhoM data proTidad by Hardy Stevenson 4 ABOciatcB. 1 994 

61 Oiverson ntamatai proTidad by Marldun, Richmond Hill and Region of York. 

71 Numixt of backyard compeaiers proiridad by York Region staff. 1993. 

II HoiBriiolda: S-F- 121,466; Sami/Town/Row- 14,49S; Low Risa- 5.410: M-F- lUn. Not* that Semi/Town/Row included with S-F; Low Rise includad widtNf-F for thlaanalyria. 

91 Refer u> Oupler 4 for general asaumptioni: Chapter 7 for York Region specific aaaumptiani 



May 1994 



PageK-1 



Ministry of Envirormtnl and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table 1C2 

Existing/Commilled Syatcm 

Region of York 



Conpoomt 


WmmCmmmmI 

AllHtMucbolda 


RMhfantial 


ytmm 

GcMMltd 


(toMic*) 
StaLBhMla 


Dtvmiafi 

ExJatinsr 

Cmimllted 




WMit 


Tot«] Residential Waste (tonne) 


196,250 


176398 


19352 


54,100 


56,981 


139,269 




Paper 

Newspaper 

Corrugated catdboard (OCC) 

Telephone Directones 

Mixed paper 


32399 

5,075 

367 

30,433 


29,m 

4.485 

324 

26397 


3322 

590 

42 

3,535 


16,641 

677 

75 

69 


17.788 

724 
80 

73 


15,112 

287 

30359 


11 

3 


22 


Subtotal (Paper) 


68',774 


60,785 


7,989 


17,462 


18,665 


50,106 


36 


etas* 


9,800 


8,661 


1,138 


5.770 


6,167 


3.633 


3 


Tlnplale Steel Iferrinu) 


7,238 


6,486 


752 


2,796 


2,989 


4,249 


3 


Aluminuqn (nan-ferroui) 


1,925 


1,701 


224 


91 


97 


1,928 


1 


Plaatic 
Hfl 
HOPE 
Other Plasbc 


403 

683 

l(j,113 


356 

604 

8,939 


47 

79 

1,175 


282 
404 


301 
432 


102 

251 

10,113 





7 


Suiit"c^' i'Plaaliel 


lUOO 


9399 


1301 


686 


733 


10,467 


8 


Organka 
Food wastes 
Yard waste 

Sobiotiii ^Oirgmkal 


44,099 

28,890 


38,977 
28390 


5,123 



3338 
17371 


3.338 
18,905 


40,761 
9,985 


29 

7 


72,989 


67367 


5,123 


21,209 


22,243 


50,746 


36 


WoodWaitc 


1,575 


1392 


1S3 







1375 


1 


Cofiatruction/Dcnolition Wait* 


2.975 


2,629 


346 







2,975 


2 


DlapoaablcDiapcn 


5,250 


4,640 


610 







5,250 


4 


Textilea/Leathct/Rubbcr 


s,oso 


7,115 


935 


61 


61 


7,988 


6 


Other 


6,475 


5.723 


752 


6,025 


6.025 


450 





Subtotal iviici - d%^') 


24,325 


21,499 


2326 


6,087 


. 6.087 


lg;j38 


13 


Itotal 


198JM 


17639« 


l»,3S2 


54,100 


56,981 


139,269 


100 



Nolea: - ' 

1 ) Compo-don alinuta iutd on E»l Yoik data from ■Risid.nh.l W.it. Compo-tion Study, Vol. I <t( th« Oi.t*rio Wute Comp. Study", Gor. * Stoni* Lid,. J.n/91 («cl. yard wasit). 

D Yard Wart. <»mp. gmtrtM) dala frar THa Phyiial and EconomK Dtmenuoni of Municipal Solid Wajtt in Ontmo". CHIMHill Eng. Lid, No»/«l 

3) Whitt Good* (coBip. gm«ni«d) tMimatt (indudad in TinpUl* St«Ho(aU from "itnidnitial WuW Comp. Study, VoL I of Ih* Onttno Wmi. Comp. Stud y", C 4 S Ltd., 1 WO 

4) RalaUvf pluin compoabcm txxd on Beck at >L 1 992 

5) Hoischold diU prondid l>y Hardy SUvcnson & Asociata, 1994 

6) Dlvmion otimata prmndtd by Markhim, Rjchmond Hill and Rrgton of York. 
71 Numbrr of t>aeky«fdcoinp««B»pn>Tid«d by York Region iUff, 1993. 

i) HouHholds: S-F ■ \2»M6; Simi/Town/Row - H,495: Low Km - MlCt M-F ■ 13jn. Not* that Suni/Town/ Row includtd with S-F: Low Bis* included with M-F for *i» analyaii. 
9) Krirr to Oiapln 4 for gwm) «»umptionJ: Qiaptw 7 for Yorli Region sptrific iMumptions. 



May 1994 



PageK-2 



Table K3 

DiKct Cost Syttcm 

Region of York 





: (towtM) 


<(«riJ«nti.l 

Wart* 
C<n«nl«4 
MHhtda 


ReaidcnHal 
Waalt 

M-FHUda 


SMitUniU 

DiMtVlMt 

(tomca) 


CoBBiiHed 


Ciptiue 
Ralta 

(%> 


Dttt<lCo«( 
PIvwalon 
S-FHhld* 
(tonncal 


IHf««tCMl 
Dlvtniaii 

(tonn«) 


ttat 
IttdMHal 
Pivanlon 

(tDOM*) 


Waait 

LamfAllad 

(toniMi) 


DbpMMi 

WafK 
Cotap. 

ft 


Total Rettdential Wnte (tonnes) 


196,250 


176,898 


19,352 


54,100 


56,981 




82,038 


2,872 


84,910 


111,340 




Paper 

Newspaper 

Cwnigited cardboard ((XC) 
Telephone Directories 
Mined paper 


32,899 

5,075 

367 

30,433 


29,078 

4,485 

324 

26,897 


3,822 

590 

42 

3,535 


16,641 

677 

75 

69 


17,788 

724 

80 

73 


82.4 
634 
76.0 


23,960 

2,844 

246 

66 


1,092 
44 

5 

5 


25,052 

2,888 

251 

71 


7,848 
2,187 

lis 

30,362 


7 
2 

27 


Subtotal (Paper) 


68,774 


60,785 


7,989 


17,462 


18,665 




27,117 


1,145 


28,262 


40,512 


36 


Claai 


9,800 


8,661 


1,138 


5,770 


6,167 


70.3 


6,089 


378 


6;467 


3,332 


3 


Tinplale Steel (feiroui) 


7,238 


6,466 


752 


2,796 


2,989 


645 


4.183 


183 


4367 


2,871 


3 


AlumtnuDi Inon-ftirmial 


1,925 


1,701 


224 


91 


97 


41.0 


698 


6 


704 


1,221 


1 


Plaatic 
Ptl 
MDPE 
Other Plastic 


. 403 

683 

10,113 


356 

604 

8,939 


47 

79 

1,175 


282 
404 


301 
432 


83.4 

57.4 


297 
347 


IB 



316 
373 


88 

310 

10,113 




9 


sibtiiiiiPiiiic) 


11,200 


9,899 


1,301 


686 


733 




644 


45 


689 


ia'sii 


9 


Organic* 

Fnnd wastes 
Yard waste 


44,099 
28,890 


38,977 
28,890 


5,123 



3,338 
17,871 


3,3,38 
18,905 




11,829 
26,001 


505 



12334 
26,001 


31,766 
2,689 


29 
3 


Subtotal lOrganka) 


72JW9 


67,867 


5,123 


2i;209 


22,243 




ilKJO 


505 


38335 


34,655 


31 


WoodWaate 


1,575 


1,392 


183 


















1,575 


1 


Coi>stn>cH«n/D«tnol<Hon Waatc 


2,975 


2,629 


346 









D 








2,975 


3 


Diapoaabl* Diapen 


5,250 


4,640 


610 


















5,250 


5 


Teililea/Ualhei/Ilubber 


8,050 


7,115 


935 


61 


61 




55 


6 


61 


7,988 


7 


Other 


6,475 


5,723 


752 


6,025 


6,025 




5,423 


603 


6,025 


450 





Suiiiuiivi'm-oAi^i 


24,325 


21,499 


2,826 


6,087 


6,087 




5,478 


609 


6,087 


18,238 


16 


TOTAL 


196,250 


I7«,89S 


194SZ 


M,1(W 


M,9*1 1 


82,0m 


2JS72 


H,9]0 


111,340 


100 
















Reaidenltal Divcrilon - 


43% 







Notea: 

1) Compnlbon miniKa biMd on E*M Vorkdata ham -Rcsrdcntial WmU CompoiiUon Study, Vol 1 of IheOnUrio Wiifc Comp Study", Gor» & SorM Ltd , Jinm («cl y*rd witti) 

2) Y«rd W»»« (fomp- g«wr»ted) dati from -Tlw Phyiicil and Gconamic Dim««ioni of Munkipil Solid Waitt In Onurio", CK2MHill Ei\g. Ltd , Nov/ 91 

3> While Coodi (coiBp. gencraltdl ntiBult (IncludHl In TinpUli St*»l total) from -KMidmlial Wiik Comp. Slody, Vol. I o( the Onlaiio Wa.ip Com p Study", C * S Ltd., 1990 

4) ItelaliwplailiaconipoidtionbwidonBcckctal. 1»2 

5) hlouichold daU piovidcd by Hardy Stevinion k AlMKiatn, 1994 

6) rXvmlan cstimalo providtd by Marktiam, Richmond Hill and Rrgton ol York 

7) l^umbtr of backyard compoMci* providtd by York Region ilaff, 1 993. 

t) HouadioUb: S-F- 138,4««;SMni/Towji/Roi.- 14,495; Uw Ri»e-S,410;MF- 13.283 Not* that Smii/Town/Row includtd with S-F; Low Km ineluded with M-F fof IhU analyiii. 
91 R«f#rlo Chapter 4 for g»nMala»umption9: Chapter 7 for York Region »p«ifica»umplion5. 



2 
In 



^1 

3? 



if 



il 



1 



- - 


■• 


•■■■■,. 




Table K.4 

Expanded Blue Bon Syaletn 

Region of York 




V 




■ 




f- 




tlrtiMliri 


Waak 

CwMntcd 
S-FHhMi 


Rcridantial 
Waata 

CturnM 
M-FHhIda 


EidaHng 
BaaldenHal 
Dfvmioii 

(torniM) 


iMdanlial 
DiMialao 
Edatii^ 

ComnlHcd 


Qirinle 

Capita* 

RalM 

{*) 


Dlvcraton 
S-FHhId* 
(tonim) 


Ex]k,BB 
CHvcnhn 
M-F Mild* 

(tornica) 


TnUl 

RcrfdMldal 

Dlvcnhm 

lloiiMa) 


RMMcnlial 

Waate Landflllcd 

(by dlmrtncti 


ttfPtipa— d 
WMk 

% 




Toul KnldtniUI Wistc (lonnc«) 


1967S0 


176.898 


19352 


54,100 


56,981 




82,471 


3,983 


86,454 


109,796 






Piptt 

N«tvsp*per 

Comigitcd cardboard (OCC) 
Tdephom DlrectoriM 
Mbwd ff*' 


323» 

5,0;^ 

367 
30,433 


29.078 

4.485 

324 

26,897 


3.822 

590 

42 

3,535 


16,641 

677 
75 
69 


17,788 

724 

80 

73 


824 
634 

76.0 
13 8 


23,960 

2344 

246 

3,712 


1375 

187 

16 

244 


25,535 

3.031 

263 

3,956 


7365 

2,044 

104 

26.477 


7 
2 

24 




Sii^j>lDiiii'(Piip«i 


68,774 


60,785 


7,989 


17,462 


18,665 




30762 


2X>2t 


32,784 


35,990 


33 




GI>H 


9300 


8.661 


1.138 


5i770 


6,167 


70.3 


6,089 


400 


6.489 


3311 


3 




TtnplatcStcd<«crnHia) 


7,238 


6,486 


752 


2,796 


2.989 


645 


4,183 


. 243 


4,426 


2312 


3 




/Uumlnum (non-fctnaa) 


1,925 


1,701 


224 


91 


97 


410 


698 


46 


743 


1,182 


1 




PluHc 
PET 
HOPE 
Other Plastic 


403 
6g3 

10,113 


356 

604 

8,939 


47 

79 

1,175 


2B2 
404 


301 

432 


834 

57.4 
15.1 


297 

347 

1350 


20 
23 
89 


317 

369 

1,438 


86 

314 

8,675 




8 




■' SubiiuI(Pi«tk) 


n;200 


9399 


1301 


606 


733 




1,994 


131 


2,i25 


9,075 


8 




Ol$anict 
Food wastes 
Yard waste 


44.099 
20390 


38.977 
28390 


5.123 



3338 
17371 


3338 
18,905 




10315 
22,282 


505 


11,019 
22,282 


33.080 
6,608 


30 
6 




SubtoUl (Of(anlca) 


72,989 


67,867 


5,123 


21,209 


22,2*3 




32797 


505 


33301 


39,688 


36 




Wood WmM 


1^75 


U92 


183 


















1375 


1 




CanatnKtlan/DcmoHtlan Wasit 


2,975 


2,629 


346 


















2,975 


3 




EHapoaaMc Dtapcrs 


5,250 


4,640 


610 


















5350 


5 




TtxUlcaAjcadicr/Kubbn 


8,050 


7,115 


935 


61 


61 


74 


526 


35 


561 


7.489 


7 


1.1 


Other 

SiibtoUJ (Wimj - Otiicir) 


6,475 

; 24325 


5,723 

niw 


7B2 

2326 


6.025 

6;«i7' 


6,025 

6;be7 




5,423 

5^949 


603 

637 


6.025 
6386 


150 

17,738 





16 


3- 


TOTAL 


I96,2H 


17MW 


19JS2 


H,un 


5«,9«1 




8X471 


3,98a 


a64M 


109,79* 


100 


>- 


RciidenUal Dlveralon a 
NoteK 

I) ¥mJ W.il< (cwnp g««*l«l) d.b horn Th. Phpiol md Econork On^niopt of MunldH Solicj W«t» in OnlMhe: CmMHlH £»(. Ltd.. No» /»1 

4) kMn pl«4ia csni|«l<lnt tMHd on Bick M al, 1W2 

5) Ho<»l»U dm pn»ilt«d by Hardy SteWMOt fc AwciMa. ]«»« 

7) Nambir oltackyard compoilni provid.d by York Riijion .mf. !»n. 

»j HmiHholdir S-F - 12I.4W; Stmi/Town/Row ■ II;I95; Low Rim - 5,410; M-F ■ 13.183. Not. Ihal Sntii/To-n/Bow includri with S-F; Uw RiH indudtd wiU. M F for Itii. .nilyitt. 

») RH« Id Oiapln 4 tor gnural niumptio™: ChapUt ? (or York Rrjioii •p«i(ic m.u mptiora 

• * " ^' 

:4. T . 


44% 


' 


' 


II 

2,51 

II 



Tabic KS 
Wet/Diy Sy«i«m 
Region of York 




Rnidentiil Dlvcnlon ■ ! 



4) IW«ii«ptaitit»nimpodliaiibiMdc«B«kH«I.IW2 

5) HouHhold itU pro™J*» bjf H«Jy Si««or. & A«od.ti., HM 

« Dl«.l<» -Hn-I- p"-*!-! br M«U«<>V Kchn-mi Hill «Kl «.«»»" o( VotL 



>■ ■ 
la: 

- a 
5 5 

<^ 5 

P 
6" 



I 



« 



Tabic K.6 

Mixed Solid Wade Syalcin 

Region of York 



f 


- ■ 








• 






' ■■ 












^ 


C»ai|»aifit 


Rc^denlial 




ReaidenlUI 




Roidcfitlal 


Recovcicd 


MSW plaa 


RecDVCicd 


MSW plaa 


N4SWpl» 


Reaidac 




1 




WaaMCn. 


Waala 


Waitt 


(tomiMd 


Waal* 


toi MMycUng 


&C 




&Cpli>« 


e<:pli>a 


SatUte Landfill 






(•■■■••I 




Cencntcd 


EidatfConM 


LandaiM 


litMSW 


tHveralon 


In MSW 


CanpoaUni 


Conportiiig 


famMSW 








ANMitdt 


S^HhMa 


M-FHhIda 


tB.y.Ci>inpM 


Itonnci* 




Itornwd 




(laftdfitladl 


<a>arltat*d) 


noonaiftf 








196iS0| 176*)8| 193521 M.lOtf 130,1* 


















Pap« 




























Newspaper 


32395 


29,07f 


3,82 


17,7« 


15,113 


4,534 


22321 


8,992 


2631/ 


31313 


1587 






Corrugated cardboard [OCC> 


5,0?5 


4.485 


5(IC 


724 


4351 


2,175 


2,90C 


1349 


3,824 


4 749I ■^■M^ 






Ttkphofw Olnctories 


367 


324 


42 


8C 


287 


143 


223 


122 


284 


345 


21 






Mixed paper 


30,433 


26397 


3,535 


73 


30359 


3,036 


3,109 


23725 


14,722 


26334 


4,099 






Subtotal (Papcrl 


68,774 


60,785 


7,989 


18,665 


50.108 


9,888 


28,554 


34,187 


45,647 


62,74i 


'6.im 






CJaai 


9,800 


8,661 


1,138 


6,167 


3.633 


727 


6,894 





6394 


6394 


2,906 






Tinplato Stcct (fefraai) 


7,238 


6,486 


752 


2,989 


4,249 


. ■ 2,974 


5,963 





5,963 


5,963 


1.275 






Alnmllram Inon-fermiai) 


1,925 


1,701 


224 


97 


1,828 


914 


1,011 





1.011 


1,011 


914 






Plaalic 
PET 


403 


356 


47 


301 


102 


102 


403 





IP 


403 









HOPE 


683 


604 


79 


432 


M' 


63 


495 


4 


^m 


495 


188 






Other Plastic 


10.113 


8,939 


1.175 




10,113 

















10.113 






Snbtoiai IPiaalldi 


11,200 


9,899 


1301 


733 


10,4*7 


165 


898 





898 


898 


10302 






Ofganict 




























Food wastes 


44,099 


38.977 


5,123 


9,705 


34394 





9,705 


29,235 


24323 


38,940 


5,159 






yard waste 


28390 


28390 





21,664 


7,226 





21,664 


6304 


24,915 


28,167 


723 




'■' 


Subioiai il6r(anicai 


72,989 


67367 


5.123 


31369 


41,621 





31369 


35,739 


49,238 


67,107 


■5;882 






Wood Waate 


1,575 


1392 


183 





1,575 








157 


79 


157 


1,417 






CofUtniiilon/DcinollllDn Waalc 


2,975 


2,629 


346 





2,975 








297 


149 


297 


1677 






DUpuaaMc Diaper* 


5,250 


4,640 


610 





5,250 

















5,250 







Tntilta/LeethcrniubfaA 


8,aso 


7.115 


935 


61 


7,968 


799 


860 





860 


860 


7,190 


S 




OtiMr 


6,475 


5,723 


752 


6,025 


450 





6,025 





6,025 


6,025 


450 


^ 




Wbtotojjw^-Otktr) 


24^25 


21,499 


2326 


6,087 


18,238 


799 


6386 


455 


7,113 


7M\ 


16,984 


SS S 




TOTAL 


»«,ISO 


17t3»«| 


1*352 


66,106 


Ua,144 


15/M7 


81,573 


703*1 


116,764 


151,K4| 


4<296 




Residential Djveraton < 34% 






«» 




59% 


77* 






NoICK 






' 


<rompo*llandfilledl Icompoalmarkcledl 




1) Compaatlvn HliinalB b»^ on Em York dm from 'KcaidrnMal WmtcCantpatiUan Study, Vol. 1 j>f tht Onurio Wh 


w Comp. Study', Cott h S(ornr Lid . |in 


/»! (r»i:l yird wMirt. ■ - - 












2> Twd Wall (comp. (iMnMI date from Tl.. Phyiid md Grnnomic DiDi<nii«ii ol M unk.pd Solid W.te in Ortbrio 


■, CtQMHIU En§ Ud., Nov/Sl 














3) White Good> (comp. gmntnl) nHnit* (inrludxl In rinpUU Sixl toliU f-nm -Rnidtmiil W..I, Comp Study, Vol 1 ot Ihr Ontuio Wuto Comp Study', C t S Ltd., I WO 












4) RdaUv* pliilin contpoiibon hasl on BKk « .1, 1 992 










; 






S s. 




S) Houuhold dali pn»<d<d by Mudy Slrnnnn «i Awiciilo, 19M 




'' 












;?5 




6) Divmion ntinuM pn>v)d«l by Markhun, RIchnDnd Hill ind Rrgion of York 














,:■■ 






7) Number of backyiid conipaalRi pmi'ldnl by York Rrgion •!•«, 1993 










. , - 








B HouHholdl: S-F 12«,«6;SHni/Toi™/llow- 14,495; Low RiK 5,410: MF13,2M Nolr IKjlSfmi/ Town/ Row incJu 


did Willi S-F: Low t 


JH inrludt^ wilK M K lor Ihis jnilysii. 








2" 


» Rtin to Oiiplo' 4 (or gtncrti a»ump«onj; ChipMr 7 (or York Rrgion ip«iflc jMumplion. 












. 




^ 
^ 






' 




, 




*■ 




■ • . ' 






Energy 
ppendix 



Tabic K.7 






I9H 
IW7 
I9M 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2C0I 
200S 
200i 
2007 
2000 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 



Total 



Nolec 



CD 



a> 



(«> 



mi 



tW2» 
U2J32 

mjm 

707,923 
73S,000 
752324 

7t»7n 

S00.93I 
828,547 
848 A39 
869,219 
890,297 
911,887 
934;00O 
949/405 
96S;DM 
980.981 
997,161 



22541 S 
234ja37 
242,988 
252,282 
261 J32 
271,950 
27834S 
285 JOO 
292218 
299 J04 
306 J62 
313,996 
321,611 
329/110 
»7J9e 
345380 
3Si;»0 
357^174 
362,963 
368,950 



*,OH,m 



I.4K 
17% 
21ft 
2.4ft 
2J* 
3.1ft 
3Jft 
3X% 
*2% 
4.5% 
4.9ft 
5,2% 
5.6% 
5.9% 
6Jft 
6.6ft 
7.0ft 
7Jft 
7.7* 
8.0% 



Eallnulcd Resldentii) WMlcGcnertlion, Dlvcnion and Disposal Rcquiremenla 
For Six RcsidcnHal Syalcm* 

Region of York 



3.136 

4,«70 

5fl71 

6,143 

7,289 

8.513 

9.689 

10.916 

12.197 

13334 

14,928 

16J82 

i7j9a 

19,478 
21.124 
22438 
24,437 
26.082 
27,775 
29316 



Mf,01* 



bkW 



28% 



WmW 

DiipBHl 

(toniM*) 



62.140 
64,517 
66.985 
69347 
72J07 
74,969 
76.787 
78.649 
80.556 
82309 
84.510 
86360 
88,659 
90.809 
93,011 
95,266 
96438 
98.435 
100,058 
101.709 



l>*4,71« 



160,139 
165,450 
170,932 
176.593 
187.436 
188.468 
192,070 
195.735 
199.465 
203.261 
207,124 
211,054 
215,054 
219,123 
223,263 
227,475 
230,005 
232,557 
235,130 
237,725 



4,073,061 



ExACoM 
SyttcBi 



29% 



65,449 

«7,9S3 

70352 

73,250 

76,052 

78.961 

80.875 

82437 

84445 

86.903 

89,010 

91,169 

93J80 

95.644 

97,964 

100339 

101,994 

103,676 

105386 

107,124 



1,7U363 



WMt* 
Dhpaul 



156430 
162.014 
167366 
172490 
178391 
184,476 
187.981 
191347 
195.176 
198468 
202.624 
206,445 
210333 
214.288 
218311 
222,403 
224449 
227315 
229402 
232309 



3,«»l,41* 






43% 



97328 
101.258 
105.131 
109.152 
113327 
117.662 
120315 
123.438 
126,431 
129,497 
132437 
135454 
139.148 
142.523 
145.979 
149319 
151,965 
154.492 
157,040 
159430 



t,M,7** 



WhI* I Exp-BB 
DhpaMi Dtvcnion 



(loniH*) 



124.751 
128,708 
132.786 
136,967 
141316 
145,775 
148341 
150,946 
153,590 
156J74 
158.997 
161,760 
164364 
167,409 
170795 
173223 
174458 
176,500 
178.149 
179404 



3,125,033 



(Iwi»mI 



44% 



99302 
lOJ.lOU 
107.044 
1)1.138 
115389 
119,802 
122708 
125.683 
128,731 
131453 
135,050 
138325 
141.680 
145.115 
148,634 
152739 
154,750 
157302 
159496 
162.534 



1,660,274 



Diapaul 

4lmnca) 



122.977 
126466 
130473 
135,002 
139754 
143.634 
146.149 
148.701 
151790 
153.918 
156384 
159789 
162,033 
164.817 
167,640 
170,503 
172,093 
173490 
175792 
176,900 



3,077305 



WtUDty 

Sytttm 

Dt»*mian 



57% 



129.086 
134,023 
139,149 
144.472 
149,997 
155,734 
159,511 
163379 
167341 
171399 
175355 
179413 
184.173 
188,639 
193714 
197499 
201,163 
204,481 
207,854 
211782 



3.4S8,U5 






ttBmtHi 



93,193 
95.944 
98768 
101468 
104446 
107702 
109345 
111405 
112480 
114372 
116479 
117401 
119339 
121792 
123460 
124442 
125480 
126311 
127335 
128,152 



2,179,614 



MwrfWaatornc 
Bytam P I t hw Ioii 
(hHiiMai 
<hlsM 



now) 



59% 



134,116 
139746 
144.572 
150.101 
155442 
161403 
165727 
169.746 
173462 
178.078 
182397 
186,820 
191350 
195.990 
200.743 
205411 
209.002 
212.450 
215.954 
219315 



3391,926 



77% 



174336 
181712 
188,143 
195339 
202411 
210J68 
215474 
220,904 
226761 
231748 
237368 
243.124 
249420 
255459 
261744 
267379 
ri,992 
276/178 
281438 
285474 



iVMto 
(Irniaaa) 



88.163 

90.721 

93345 

96,038 

98401 

101,634 

103.129 

104438 

106.159 

107,692 

109737 

110,794 

112362 

113.941 

115,531 

117,131 

117441 

118,542 
119735 
119.918 



4,67S.774l XI 4445) 



47.742 
48.754 
49.774 
50400 
SI 432 
52469 
53.182 
53,479 

a.Tte 

54.022 
54764 
54,490 
54493 
54473 
55,030 
55.163 
54.851 
54313 
54,150 
53,760 



1462,004 



(1) Population data pnpared by Harcty Sicvcmon and Aaaociatca, Mar. 21 /94 

(2) population projection rnultijolicd by 037 lonn«/np<U/y«r ftiased on histbrical dali) 



^1 



2 



5.5 

I 

r 

3 

•a 

!^ 



3 

m 

:a 
S. 
3 






?!i 



I 



!3 



SCHEDULE L 
REGION OF PEEL ESTIMATES 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table LI 

ExUHng Sytlriii 

Region of Peel 



CMimMnI 


itesUMty 

4tMiMf>'i9n 


■etidmutt 

Willi 

Cemirtid 

S-F 


Caaailad 


PIvafalon 
(tonMs)-19n 
5ld.BtiieBoK 


W««tot«t4iUM 

(brdlfleMm) 

1M2 


GaapMltlM 

afDIspased 

tVaato 

% 


Total Raidoilial Waste (loniM*> 


313J96 


238.153 


75,143 


59,967 


2S3329 




Paper 

NewipapCT 

Corrugated cardboard (OCC) 
Telephone Directories 
Mixed paper 


53.909 

■8316 

859 

49,609 


39,147 

6,039 

653 

35,995 


14.763 

2.277 

206 

13.614 


21534 
1,234 

469 


32375 

7,082 

147 

49,140 


13 

3 

19 


SublDtal.n'apcr) 


112,694 


81,833 


30,860 


23,949 


88,745 


35 


Glaaa 


16,050 


11^61 


4397 


6,674 


9384 


4 


Tinplale Sted <fenx>iu) 
Aluininuin (non-tiBTOUi) 


12,024 
3,154 


8,731 
2,290 


3,293 
864 








Subtotal (AIbdi. * Tin) 


15,178 


11X122 


4,156 


6,137 


9,041 


4 


Plaatic 

per 

HOPE 
Otlw Plastic 


661 

1,119 

16J72 


480 

813 

12J134 


181 

307 

4538 








Subtotal (PUttici 


18JS2 


13327 


5,026 


694 


17,658 


7 


Otganici 
Food wastes 
Yaid waste 


72J62 
38,894 


51473 
38394 


19,788 



6533 
10,735 


65730 
28,159 




Subtotal (Organki) 


111.155 


91367 


19,788 


17,267 


93389 


37 


Wood Watle 


2J81 


1,874 


707 


2,490 


91 




Cbnamction/DcnHilitiofi Waste 


4.875 


3,540 


1335 


142 


4,733 




Disposable Diapcn 


8.6Q3 


6,247 


2356 




8.603 




Teirtiles/Leathcr/KDbbeT 


13,191 


9,578 


3,612 


390 


12301 




Other 


10,610 


7,704 


2,905 


2224 


8386 




Subtotal (Wood ■ Olhcf) 


39,859 


28,»«4 


10,915 


5246 


34:613 


14 


TOTAL 


313,»6 


238,153 


75,143 


59,967 


ZS3329 


100 



Reiidenlial Diversion ■ 19% 
Notes: 

1) CoinpoMtlon ottmiMsbiad on EaM York dati front 'RaskltntulWsatiCoinpoattkm Study. VoL I o<<h(OiitaitoWu(t<^ (nci. yaid Mato). 

2) Ytid WasM (camp, gsncntfd) dak fnm The Ptiyilcil ■nd EcmonHc Dlmmrionof Muntdpal Solid W«sli In Ontario', CH7MHI11 Eng. Lkl., Nov/91 

3) Whltt Goods (cnnp. pn trHs d) HdnoM (Inciiidtd In TlnpUt* S(mI lotaD trom 'Rntdmtlal Waiif Cemp. Study, Vol. I ol thi Ontario WhK Comp. Study'. C It S Ltd.. I*W 

4) RdadTC plasties comporttioobaisd en Back «tal.im 

51 Housrinld dan proTtdsd by Hardy StrntuonAAssKtsMs. 1994 

i) Dlvcnlon nUmata for Existing Systan otiuinad fram fUglon of Fsd 1^ Annual Rcpoit. 

71 Number of badcyud rompoalns provtdad by Raglon cf hH suff. m3. ' 

n Housfholdi; S-F- 1 17,152: Soil/Town/ thm -M,7U; Law iUv-»JOO;M-F-SSAn. Nola that Snnl/Town/Rowlncludid with S-F; Low KtHtaicludKl witti M-F for Itils analysis. 

91 Htitt ID chapter 4 lor general assumptions; Chaptrr for fe|^n d1 Ptti spsclflc assumptkms. 



May 1994 



PageL'l 



Ministry ofEnviroHment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



TtM« LJ 

ExisUng/Ci»imlHcd SyMnii 

Region of PmI 



GD^^pdHcni 




GMMMtd 
S-FHIiMt 


G«a«MM|- 
M-FHU^ 


XMl'Milaai 




VfmmUmMm 

tb74UltMM*» 

tnt 


« 




Tobd RoidcnlliJ Wntc (tonnes) 


313,296 


238,153 


75.143 


59,967 


78,457 


234,839 




Piper 

News paper 

Corrugated ctrdbovd (OCC) 

Ttlephon* DirKtories 

Mixed jpeper 


53,909 

»9 
49,609 


39,147 

6,039 

6S3 

35,995 


14,763 

2,277 

206 

13,614 


21J34 

1,234 

712 

469 


21.986 

U60 

727 

479 


31,923 

7,056 

132 

49,130 


14 
3 

21 


Subtotal (Paper) 


112,694 


81333 


30.860 


23,949 


24,452 


88,242 


38 


Claa 


16,058 


11,661 


4397 


6,674 


6J14 


9,244 


4 


Tinplale Steel (feiroutj 
Aluminum (non-fcrrDus) 


12,024 
3,154 


8,731 
2290 


3J93 
864 










Subloul Metal* (oonunlnglcdl 


15,178 


11,022 


4,156 


6,137 


6J66 


8,912 


4 


Plaitk 

PET 
HDPE 
Other Plastic 


«1 

1,119 

16J72 


(13 
12.034 


181 

307 

4,538 


- 








Subtotal (PUalk) 


18JS2 


13327 


5,026 


694 


709 


17,644 


8 


Oijanica 
Food wastes 
Yaid watt* 


7U62 
3M94 


52,473 
38,894 


19,788 



6332 
10,735 


7,911 
27,059 


64351 

11335 




Subtotal (Organial 


111,155 


91367 


19,788 


17,267 


34,970 


76.185 


32 


WoodWaMc 


2381 


1,874 


707 


2,490 


2,490 


91 




Conatfwtlon/Demolltlon Waste 


4,875 


3,540 


1335 


142 


142 


4,733 




DIspaaabI* DUpef* 


8,6<Q 


6,247 


2356 






8,603 




TnHlcs/Uathn/Rubber 


13,191 


9J78 


3,612 


390 


390 


12301 




Other 

SubKAiVVWottd - Oiiier) 


10,610 

39i'59 


7,704 

'is.9ii 


Z90S 
10,91 S 


2.224 

5i46 


2,224 
5246 


8386 
' 34313 


15 


TOTAL 


313,196 


238,153 


79^143 


S9,96T 


78,457 


134339 


100 



ResldentUI Diversion - 1S% 

Notes 

1) Compiaitian nhmata buad on Eut Yot dati tran 'Rciidatiil WuM Compoution Study, Vol. 1 of the Oxarlo Wutt Comp. Slud^'. Con h Stnrric Ltd.. Jni/91 (mcl. yiid >UH). 

2) Yard Wntc (coinp. gnnied) dMa 6a« Tla Ptijncal ind Ecanomic DiincMioia ti Municipal Solid Wub in Ontirio ", CH2MHiU Eii|. Ud ., Nw/»1 

3) WMti Cooik (amp. |«nMd) mtaaai Ondudnl in Taiplttt Stmt loul) ftnn "RoMlaHiil Wutc Cocnp. Sludy, Voll <i« t)w Omaha Wut Camp. Study'. C k 5 Ltd.. IMI 

4) Rcldnri plutKX mnpoBlBn hHcd on Baikl) iL IWZ 

5) HouMJuld data pRNtdad by Haidy Smmaon * AaooMB. 19M 

b} Divfnian mu wal— lor Ektitii^ Syatam ofatainad fram Rcfion of Peel 1993 Annual Report 

71 Number dI badcyard l U ii ipMW r a providad by Ri(kin ol Pad itaH. 1 W3. 

ai Houadioldi: S-F - 1 17.152: Smu/Town/Roo - St.TU: Lew Riaa • <>,tOa: M-F - 55,039 Nat* ll<at Snni/Trjwn/Raw included witl< S.R Lew Rix inrludid wHh M-F lar tliia analyati. 

9) RrfartoOupts t for general aaaumptiona: ChapttT I lorRrgiOppI Pad apcdfic aiaumption*. 



May 1994 



PageL-2 



Table L3 

Direct Coat Syatetn 

Region of Prcl 



Caai|NHMMt 


1M.WMI* 
AllHhld* 


RMidenUal 

Watit 
Cencralcd 
6-FHhlda 


Waste 
M-f Hlilda 


Dlvtni«n 

Eidstln^ 

CsotalHed 


Q«tnt* 
Captue 

R«tct 

(«> 


ITlnctCoat 
Dhr«ntoii 
S^Hhld* 

(IOttltM> 


DirtdCMt 

Dlv«taa 

M-FHMd* 

iKHinea) 


DtiMCaM 
DtventoB 
AllHlilda 
<taniMa) 


KM. Wast* 

LandflIM 

(tOfMea) 

tMl 


Waak 
Coatpw 


Total RnldcnUai Waal* (lonnca) 


3t3J96 


238,153 


75.143 


78,457 




106,955 


8,201 


115,156 


198,140 




Paper 

Ncwapapcr 

Comigated cardboanl (OCC) 
Tclrphone Djrtctories 
Mixed paper 


53.909 

8.316 

859 

49.609 


39,147 

6/J39 

653 

35,995 


14.763 

2.277 

206 

13,614 


21,966 

1,260 

727 

479 


82.40 
63.40 
84.58 


32.257 

3,828 

654 

431 


3.486 
200 
115 

48 


35,745 

4,028 

770 

479 


18.165 

4.287 

90 

49,130 


9 
2 

25 


Siiblotai (Piipiiri 


112^4 


81333 


30.860 


24,452 




37,171 


. 3.851 


41.022 


71,672 


36' 


Gliaa 


16.058 


llMl 


4397 


6.814 


70.30 


8.197 


1.081 


9,279 


6,780 


3 


TInplalc Steel (ferrous) 
Aiumlnurrt (non-ferrow) 


1X024 
3,154 


8,731 
2.290 


3J93 
864 
















SubtolaTMctaiaico^^^ 


15.178 


11,022 


4,156 


6.266 


61.40 


6,767 


95(4 


7.761 


7,417 


4 


Plaatk 
PET 
HOPE 
Other PiBtk 


661 

1,119 

16.572 


480 

813 

12.034 


181 

307 

4J38 




83.40 
57.40 


400 
467 






400 

467 




261 

653 

16,572 




SnblDlal (Flulkl 


1B352 


13327 


5,026 


709 




867 





867 


17,485 


9 


Organic* 
Food wastes 
Vard waste 


72.262 
38.894 


52.473 
38394 


19,788 



7.911 
27,059 




14,227 
35.004 


1,751 


IS.?;? 
35,004 


56.284 
3,889 




Subtotal (Otpnlctl 


111.155 


91367 


19,788 


34,970 




49531 


1,751 


50,982 


60,1^4 


30 


Wood Waalc 


2381 


1374 


707 


2,490 




2.241 


249 


2,490 


91 




CbnilnKtlan/DemaUliaa Waste 


4.875 


3340 


1335 


142 




128 


14 


142 


4,733 




DIaposaMe Dlapen 


8.603 


6.247 


2356 













8,603 




TnHlaa/Leatlwsma bbvr 


13,191 


9,578 


3.612 


390 




351 


39 


390 


nfiOl 




Other 


10.610 


7704 


2,905 


2,224 




2.002 


222 


2J24 


8306 




SvU^ifWoad-biiiMJ 


39,859 


28,944 


10,915 


5J46 




4.721 


525 


5,246 


34,613 


17 


TOTAL 


313,296 


238,153 


75,143 


7»,IS7 




1<»,9H 


1,201 


ns,iM 


]98,1« 


IW 














Rrsidcntia Diveraion e 


J7% 







Notes: 

1) Cimipo^liDii aliiMtaa l>M«i on EmI Yoik diU hxm 'RaidcnluJ WMl»Coiiipomlion Shnty. Vol. I of Uw Ohtario Wlttt Comp. Studji ■, Com k Storm Ud. (111/91 fcid. yttd WMM) 

7> Yard Wat* Inmp. pnvatal) daU iltni Iht Fhpkal ind Economic Dimcnioiu of Munidpd Sslid W»l> In Onbrio', ClOMHili Eng Ltd., Nov/91 

3> White CoDdl tmwp. grnnHd) ntimd* UkIimIkj in Tinplilt Stnl toUl) hum 'Rnidtnttll Will* Comp. Shidy. VoL I of Ihr Ontvio W»lt Conip Studir'. C k S Ltd , 1990 

4) RrbUn pUMIo conpoaitlDn bH*d on Bidi K al, 1993 

5) HouHhold data pn»M*d by Hardy Stavanaon k Aaaodatn. 1994 

i) Ditmion nHmalaa for Eiialtng Syakn obtainad Iroin Rigion of Ftr\ 199} An nual Rrpwl. 

7) Numtm of bKkyard compoalan piovtdad by Ragion of Pacl atafl, 1991 

11 Houatholda: S-F- lP,151S»nil/To«i/»o«. -StJH: Low Riaa- 9.«)0: M F - Mj099 No(« iKal Sami/Town/flow Intludad »|lh ^F, i.D» Riw includrd with MF tot Ihta analyaia 

9) Rafer to Chaptrr 4 for gmrral aaaumpfiona; Chapter ft for Ration of Frvl ipacifie aaaumpfiona. 



I 



- ■ ;> 
S. 

6 * 



Tabic L.4 

Expanded Blac Box Syalcm 

Region of P««l 



C-f^ 


WarttCn. 

ftnaiiMl 
AllHUik 




laaidaalU 

Wari* 
Cencnlad 
M-FHhMa 


PhnarioB 
Eidalfai»r 


Q«itila 
Caftan 


Raa.Dli. 

QoniM*) 

EipLH 

S-FHMda 


X«.[}i«. 
<IOOfMt> 

Eip.n 

M-FHhMa 


nawaiMi 

All 

HblA 


Ha*. Waal* 

iMdMM 

ftowiaal 


Dtap«a«l 
WMta 
Co«p. 

% 




313,296 


238,153 


73,143 


78;tS7 




106 J68 


13321 


119396 193/400 




paper 

NrwsfMpcr 

Corrugated cardboard (OCCI 

Tdcphonc Dircdorks 

Miicdjpapvr 


53,909 

8316 

859 


39.147 

6,039 

653 

35,995 


M,7M 

ixn 

206 
13,614 


21,98* 
1,260 

777 
479 


82 40 
6340 
84.58 
1380 


33J57 

1,828 

654 

4,967 


6382 

722 

87 

939 


38339 15J70 

4350 3765 

741 118 

5,907 43,702 


8 
2 

23 


SaktoUl <rap«) 


112^94 


8)j»3| 3djH0 


24,452 




41707 


7331 


49J38 


63.156 


33 


Claa 


96,058 


11,661 


4J97 


6314 


70 30 


8.197 


1J46 


9,743 


tjis 


3 


Tinplat* Steel (fcrrout) 


\2mt 

3,154 


8,731 
2J90 


3J93 
864 
















Suiiiaui MetaUeMnniniliedy 


15,178 


11.022 


OS* 


6,266 


61 40 


6,767 


1776 


8.043 


7,135 


4 


riaalk 
PET 
irOPE . 
Other PUMk 


Ml 

1,119 

16,572 


480 

813 

12,034 


181 

307 

4538 




83 40 
57 40 
1510 


400 

467 

1317 


75 
88 

343 


476 

S55 

2,160 


115 

565 

14/112 




Subtolal iriallcl 


i85S2 


13J17 


5D26 


709 




im 


506 


3,190 


15,162 


8 


Organlia 

Food waitc* 
Yard waMe 


72J62 
38494 


52,473 
38^94 


19,788 



7,911 
27fl59 




12M6 
29787 


1,751 


I4J96 

29787 


57365 
9*07 




Subtotal lOrganlcal 


111,155 


91367 


19,788 


34,970 




41533 


1,751 


13,684 


67472 


35 


WoodWHie 


2381 


1,874 


707 


2,490 




2741 


249 


2.490 


91 






4,875 


3,540 


1J35 


142 




128 


14 


142 


4.733 






8*13 


6,247 


2J56 












8>03 




Tevtllta/Lealher/Rubbcr 


13,191 


9S79 


3,612 


390 


7.40 


709 


134 


842 


12348 




Other 


10,610 


7.704 


2,»S 


2,224 




2302 


223 


2,224 


8386 




S«irtMdm<^-iaiM 


39359 


28,944 


10,915 


SJ(46 




5379 


619 


Vm 


34,160 


ie 


TOTAL 


JIl^M 


3M,>S3 


7S,143 


7i,4ST 




1M4M 


IJJU 


11*^ 


1*1,400 


IN 



Divcniofl ■ 38% 
NotcK 

1) Cain|«aiiin aMiiaiB biacd m Eau York dtu finn "Roldiiiiiil Wou CampiBaion Study. VuJ. i o( ilv Onurto WaMr Comp. Staiy. Con k Storm Lid. )aii/»1 (nd. yiid iviM>) 

2) Tara WhM Icoaif . fommt*) 4(U Irani 'T)w ni^vlcal eihI Emciomk Dtmiialaiu ol Muridpal Sobd VImtt InOlUHa', CH3MH1II E/ig. Ltd.. Umtn 

J) WhHx Cauda (uifi^. |»w iil»i l ) aMmt* (IlKkadid In Tinplau SirrI tcnl) (rom 1lnid«1lal Watr Camp, Study, Vpl 1 of lK> Ofilario VViHr Coinp. Shdiy'. C li 5 Ltd . IMS 

4) ilflaHvrpliMtaoonvotMailwtdnilKkitallMI 

5) HiuelHM data pisvUid tf Hardy SimMOd * Aiudatn I W4 

6) Divf lUon Mtlinain lor EiWIOg Sjntam otalalMd fnm Rcgton i]< PhI 1 W2 Annul Riport. 

7) NunavTDlbackyaidnnipgiifnpievldtdbyRtglgiiiWIVlaiK, IM3 

n HoortioUc it - ll?.IS£ bin/Towii/llsw - M,7U. Low Um - «,MD; M-F - SS.aH. Niita Out Siml/Town/Raw Inckidrd with ^V: Ix>» RIk Inrkidrd wNh MF liv Ikb inalyria. 
V) Refer (oChaptrr 4 Idt grnrral umirr^tiom: Chapter A lor Region of Peel ipeciftc ■Hum^tona. 






III 



I* 



I 



I 



Table l_5 

Wei/Dry Syalem 

Region of Peel 





All Mildt 


Waati 
Gcnccaled 
S-P Hhld* 


WaaM 
Gentnted 
M-FHhld* 


RaaldralUI 
Dtvfnioti 


QnJnta 

Giptiiic 

lUrtet 


R«a.Dlv. 

(loniwa) 

Wetn>ty 

S-FHhlda 


R<..Dl*. 
(tennei) 

WetfOir 
M-FHhlda 


Reddanlfari 

Divenioo 

AD 

Hhlda 


Hal. Waate 
LteidfOled 


Waate 
Cnmp. 

. % 


Total RcsidcntuI Wute (lonna) 


313,296 


238,153 


75,143 


78,457 




141,418 


19,693 


161,111 


152,185 




r.p.r 

Newspaper 

Comigiled cvdboird (OCC) 

Mixed paper 


53,909 

8,316 

859 

49,609 


39,147 

6,039 

653 

35,995 


. 14,763 

2,277 

206 

13,614 


21,986 

1,260 

727 

479 


82.40 
6340 
84 58 
13.80 


32,257 

3,828 

654 

4,967 


6,082 

722 

87 

939 


38339 

4,550 

741 

5,907 


15,570 
3,765 

lis 

43,702 


10 

2 

29 


Subtouii (Paper) 


112,694 


81,833 


30,860 


24,452 




41,707 


7,831 


49,538 


63,156 


4i 


CUa* 


16,058 


11,661 


4J97 


6,814 


7030 


8,197 


1,546 


9,743 


6315 


4 


Tinpble Steel (reirous) 
Alumintun (non-fetrous) 


12,024 
3,154 


8,731 
2,290 


3,293 

864 


















15,178 


11,022 


4,156 


6,266 


61.40 


6,767 


1,276 


8,043 


7,135 


5 


PlaiHc 
PET 
HOPE 
Other Plastic 


661 

1,119 

16,572 


480 

813 

12,034 


181 

307 
4,538 




83,40 
57.40 
15.10 


400 

467 

1,817 


75 

88 

343 


476 

555 

2,160 


185 

565 

14,412 




Sui>t»td'(PUi«'c» 


18,352 


13,327 


' loi't 


709 




2,684 


506 


3,190 


15,162 


10 


Otganks 
Food wMin 
Yard waste 


72,262 
38,894 


52,473 
38,894 


19,788 



7,911 
27,059 




41,979 
35,004 


7^915 


49,894 

35,00< 


22368 
3,889 




Subtotal <Orunic«l 


111,155 


91,367 


19,788 


34,970 




76,983 


7,915 


84,898 


26,257 


17 


WoodWaalc 


2,581 


1,874 


707 


2,490 




2,241 


249 


2,490 


91 




ConatriKtioii/DcmoliHen Waate 


4,875 


3,540 


1335 


142 




128 


14 


142 


4,733 




DlapoMblc Dlapc» 


8,603 


6,247 


2,356 












8,603 




TcitilcWLeathei/Rubbcr 


13,191 


9,578 


3,612 


390 


7.40 


709 


134 


842 


123^8 




Other 


10,610 


7,704 


2,905 


2,224 




2,002 


222 


222* 


8386 




SubtoiallWcoii - Otheri 


39359 


28,944 


10,915 


S;246 




5,079 


619 


5,698 


34,160 


22 


TOTAL 


313J96 


238,153 


7S,1I3 


7»,4S7{ 




14M18 


19,493 


161,111 


15Z,1SS 


100 



Residential Diveraion • S1% 

Notea: 

1) OHnpiMitian wbmatM bfi m Eiil York dits from TtaidmBjl WmW Ci>ni|>D«tiDn Study, Vol. t of Ihi OnUrio WiHt Comp. Study", Core * Slorri* Lid., J«i/n (««l. y«rd waibl. 
a ¥«td Wuk (comp. gtrnttltd) data horn. Tht FItyslCil and Economic Dimmiloiu at Munkcipil Solid Wiste in OnUiio", CHZMhIIII Erg. Ltd., tfov m 

3) Whitr Goods (comp. gclMratod) (Stimat* (included in Tinplaii Slftl loUU from 'RHidenlial WasI* Comp. Study, Vol t o( the OnUrjo Wijlt Comp Study", C 4 S Ltd., 1990 

4) Ralallvs plastics compoaition baaad on Bark tili,1992 

5) Mousrhold data ptovtdHl by Mardy Slrv«n»n 4 AsKcitlM. 14M 

6) l3i»n»ion nlimaln (or Existing Sysirm oblainfd (mm Rrgion ol l'r*\ 1992 Annuil RfpoK 

7) Numbar of liackyird compostits pnvldad by Region of Peal stilf, 1993 

« Hoiaaholds: S-F- 117,152; Seml/Town/Row - S4,T»3; Ijw Rise ■ 9,800; M-F - 56.(D9. Note thai Sami/Town/Row included wilh S-K; tJJW Rise included with M-F (or this analysis. 
9) Refer lo piapter 4 lot general agaumptions; Chapter S for Region o( Peel specific assumptions. 



§ 



Is 



c; 


t- 


1 


^ 


r 


^ 




? 


r% 


s 


^ 





it b 

S3 



I 



Table U« 

Mixed Watte Ptoce«*ing Syatem 

Region of Peel 



'. ■;■■■ '■■:"■ 


WMtoGtM: 
AUHklli 


G<nnti4 
$-FllliM* 


Raialdcntlal 

Waal* 
M-FHhld* 


II...Div«la. 

(iMiaMl 

EidatCamt 

4.KY.C»aipoa. 


Reridcfitial 

W«sl« 

Undfllled 

<tonoc«l 


Rccowand 

forRecyclinc 

IbMSW 

Pranasiiig 


MSWplaa 

EC 

DIvmion 

Ihmnml 


Atcowfed 

fiMCoMp«*«ns 

liiMSW 

PHK«a*ii.t 


MSWpl.. 

ECptM 

CaxpMlllig 

(IkitdfUled) 


MSWplaa 

CbaspMUfil 

towricetedl 


MeatdM 1 
cttltoUttdCU 

faDMMSW 

^ir 1 a all 1 a 

rnKVwniy 


foul ftMkleMi^'l VHmt, itomSi 


3I3,29i 


238.153 


75,143 


84346 


228,450 














Paper 

Newspaper 

ComigitKl caidboard (OCC) 

Mixed paper 


53,909 

8316 

859 

49j609 


39,147 

6.039 

653 

35,995 


14:763 

2277 

206 

13,614 


21,996 

U60 

727 

479 


31,923 

7,056 

132 

49,130 


9,577 

3,528 

66 

4,913 


31,563 

4,788 

793 

5392 


18,994 

2,999 

56 

37,585 


41,060 

6,287 

821 

24.184 


50,557 

7,787 

849 

42,976 


3352 

529 

10 

6333 


Subioiaj (Papcrj 


112,694 


81,833 


30,860 


24,452 


88,242 


18,084 


42,536 


59,634 


72353 


102.170 


10324 


Class 


16j05» 


11,661 


4397 


6,814 


9,244 


1349 


8,663 





8,663 


8363 


7395 


TlnpUtcStecKfeiToiM) 
Aluminum (non-lemMn) 


124124 
3,154 


8,731 
2,290 


333 
864 




























15,178 


11,022 


4,156 


6,266 


8,912 


5.868 


12,134 





12,134 


12,134 


3X144 


PlasUc 
PET 
HOPE 
Otiier Plastic 


m 
. i.ns 

16372 


480 

813 

12,034 


181 

307 

4338 














,11 
« 


- -- 







SibiiuhPiastkj 


18352 


13327 


5,026 


709 


17,644 


904 


1,613 





1,613 


1313 


16739 


Orginlu 
Food was In 
Yard waste 


77362 
30,894 


52.473 
38,«94 


19,788 



12,816 
28,543 


59,446 
103SO 






12316 
28>»3 


50.529 
9315 


38.080 
33,201 


63345 
37359 


8,917 
1A3S 


Sabtoiai i6r^ni«> 


111,155 


91367 


19.788 


41359 


69.796 





41359 


59,844 


71,281 


101,203 


9,952 


Wood Waste 


2,581 


1,874 


707 


2.490 


91 





2,490 


9 


2.495 


2,499 


82 


Constnicdon/Denolltlon Waste 


437S 


3,540 


1335 


142 


4,733 





142 


473 


379 


615 


4760 




8,603 


6J47 


2356 




8,603 

















8303 


Tertilc«rUalli<r/RablMr 


13,191 


9,578 


3,612 


390 


12301 


1.280 


1.670 





1,670 


1370 


11321 


CHIm 


10,610 


7,704 


2,905 


2J24 


8386 





2724 





2J24 


2^24 


83» 


SiiWMaiiWwd-btiHtrt 


39359 


28,944 


10,915 


5J46 


34.613 


1,280 


6.526 


482 


6,767 


7X108 


32,^0 


TOTAL 


313,296 


Z3III» 


7S,143 


s<a4t 


JM,«o| 


27,985 


111331 


11«,9M 


17I3I1 


231792 


M304 






Residential 


Dtverslon = 


27* 






. M%. 




SS« 


74% 





(compost landftiledl (compost marketed) 



Notes: 

I) CompnlliDn tsttmato ' ' on EmI York dab hom 'RHideiDisJ Waik Q>mp«iban Study, Vol. I d( th< Ontario Waatc Camf. Study', Con 4 Btonit Lid , |an/»l (tu-1. yard waite). 

:) Yaid Waak (mnp. gflHtatfd) daM tioni The Phyikil and BcmHnlc Dimcndon ol M unidpal Solid WbK In Ontario-, CHZMHIU Eiii. Ltd., Nov/ 9t 

.3) VWhlteCoodi(<Mnp. gtMratrt)«abinafcOnd»d«dtaTinplat»St»dtDt»U from -RwkJinbiJWartaCDmp. Study, Vol. l-o<lh»OntarioWa.t«C™ip.Sludy\GfcS^ IWQ 

4] RdativF plaidci confposiHon bHcd on Baclc rl aj, 1992 

Sj Houwhold data provldtd by Hardy Strnnaon it AwxHaln, I9M 

61 Divmlon ntimam for Eiiiilin|| Syatrm otitainid 6<Hn ltc|ian of Pid 1 993 A nnual Riporl 

71 Numbs of bKkyanl co mp ottrt proirlded by lUglon o( iWl iImH, 1993. 

SI HouMtxildi: S-F- 1 17,152; S«ini/Town/Bo«r-54,7M;Lo«(llta«- 9300: M-F-55.CLJ9 Notolhal S»mi/Town/Row Includrd «rith S-F; 1,0" Bimncluded wHh MF (or Ihiianaly.ii. 

9) Refer K> Chapkr 4 lor g«if 1*1 auumplioni; Cliaptrr t lor Region of T"! >ptcilic auumpldoiu. 



Cl 

I* 



n c 



'I 



le 



Tiblc L.7 



S 

^ 



Eatimitrd Rctidcntiil W««tt GcntrtHon, Diveraion ind Diipoaal 
For Six Kctidcnlial Syilem* 

Region of Peel 

































-1 ■ — 






1 






i»..K4 








En/Cm 

SjnItM 


WhU Dlt.Caii 


WhM E>p. » 


WMie 


WtMhy 

SftHb 


i*4«lrfH 


6yit»wDlT«nti>» 


Bc^idrii^IIIapMal 








m 




DtKidM 


DHNlMi 


DivniBn 


tHtftfl 


Dtvcaka 


DlilHwd 


Dtvmlan 


DIlpMl 


OlTCBiMl 


DkpoMt 


«»tUMi) 


(iMuma 




(it 


Itmtmtm 






flOWM4l 


(loniM) 


(loniMO 


llMIIWl 


ftoOM*! 


ftoniMl 


««nnH) 


HeidMal 


(lonmt 


(lonMal 


««»> 


<»■«» 


(hm) 


1*«M' 




»iiHlM»y 


■«_ DtnatMl*) 




19% 




25% 




37% 




38% 




51% 




55% 


74% 






I9W 


a5l.74S 


349.215 


14% 


i,BSi 


66,842 


277.515 


87,452 


156.901 


128359 


215,998 133,642 


210.714 


179,582 


164,775 


192,624 


259.481 


151,733 


84.876 


1997 


877,75« 


359.881 


17% 


6.259 


68,8A3 


284,739 


90,123 


263,499 


132.279 


221,343 137.724 


215.898 185,067 


168355 


198307 


267.406 


155,115 


86J16 


1998 


90iJStS 


370.872 


21% 


7.74C 


70,987 


292.145 


92,873 


270.257 


136J19 


226,813 141,930 


221.202 190,719 


172.413 


JO4370 


275373 


158,562 


87359 


1999 


930.191 


382.198 


24% 


9J06 


73,155 


299,737 


95,711 


277.181 


140,482 


231411 


146,265 


226.628 


196,543 


1763491 210,817 


283.989 


16Z07S 


88.904 


2000 


9«0,MI 


393,871 


2.8% 


10.9M 


7SJ89 


307,522 


98,634 


284,277 144,772 


238.139 


150,732 


232,179 202,546 


1803«s| 217256 


292,662 


165,655 


90,249 


xxn 


990.000 


405,900 


31% 


12,706 


77,692 


315502 


101,647 


291,547 149,194 


244.0Q0 


155335 


237,858 208.732 


184,462 


223,891 


301,600 


169,3<H 


91393 


vxa 


I.OOt.943 


412,027 


35% 


14.331 


njti* 


318,831 


103,181 


294,514 151.446 


246.250 


157,680 


240,016 


211,883 


185,8131 227.270 


306,153 


17a42S 


9t3«3 


2003 


1.020.112 


418 J4i 


38% 


16,002 


80,055 


322.189 


104,738 


29750S 153,732 


248312 


160,060 


242,184 


215.081 


187,1631 230,701 


310,774 


171,543 


91.471 


2004 


1,035.510 


424.559 


4 2% 


17,721 


81 ,263 


325375 


106319 


300,519 15«,0S2 


250786 


162.476 


244,363 


218,327 


188311 


234.183 


315,465 


17Z655 


91374 


20G6 


I.IB1.140 


430,9»7 


4 5% 


19,487 


82,490 


328,99C 


107,924 


303356 158,408 


253,073 


164,928 


246362 


221,623 


189,857 


237.718 


320.216 


173,762 


91J54 


200» 


i.a67.ax 


437,472 


49% 


21,303 


83.735 


332,434 


1095S3 


306,6U 


160,798 


255,371 


167.418 


248,752 


224,968 


191,201 


241306 


325,060 


174,863 


91,110 


2007 


1,083.111 


444.076 


52% 


21,169 


84,999 


335.90e 


111J07 


309.70( 


163,226 


257.681 


169,945 


250,962 


228,364 


192343 


244,948 


329.966 


175,958 


90X0 


2008 


1.099,459 


450.778 


5 6% 


25,087 


86J82 


339,41C 


112.885 


312.806 


165.699 


260.002 


172310 


253,182 


231.810 


193,881 


2«,645 


334,947 


177,046 


90,745 


2009 


1,116.055 


457,S«3 


59% 


27,067 


87J84 


342,94) 


114,589 


315,936 


168,190 


26Z335 


175,114 


2B,412 


235.309 


195,216 


252399 


340,002 


178,127 


90323 


2010 


1,132.900 


464,489 


63% 


29,081 


88.906 


346,502 


116319 


319,089 


170,729 


264,679 


177,757 


2S7,«S1 


238.861 


196347 


256208 


345,134 


179.200 


90774 


2011 


1,150 An 


471,500 


66% 


31,16C 


90,248 


350.092 


118,075 


322J65 


173306 


267,004 


180.440 


239,900 


242.466 


197 J74 


260,075 


350344 


1801265 


89.994 


2012 


1.1MJ54 


475,827 


70% 


33,101 


91,076 


351,6St 


119,158 


323 J6e 


174.896 


267,8X 


182,096 


260,630 


244.692 


198,034 


262,462 


353359 


18a264 


89,1*7 


2013 


1.171.204 


480,194 


73% 


35,075 


91,912 


353,207 


120JS2 


324,867 


176501 


268,617 


183,767 


261,352 


246.937 


198.182 


264,871 


356«3 


18t;248 


88315 


2014 


1.181.952 


484.«0a 


77% 


37,082 


92,735 


354,762 


121355 


326,163 


178.121 


269,397 


185.453 


262.065 


249,203 


198315 


267301 


360 J78 


180.216 


87.440 


2015 


1.192.798 


489,047 


80% 


39,124 


93,607 


356317 


122.469 


327,455 


179,7SS 


2701168 


187,155 


262,768 


251,490 


198.433 


269.754 


363382 


i8ai» 


86341 


T«t>l 




tMOAOi 




*WAn 


1.646,725 


6,53S,96« 


1,1*4.4*7 


6,028,Z25 


),1*IIS2 


!,020,4M 


3.W2.4H 


4,M0467 


4,414,»1 


3,7sa.4M 


4.74S,5M 


*3*1.6« 


M37,1H 


1,T90.IIH 



1 Popil«lom»»U •upplml bj H»nj)r Slrwnmi ind A»oa««, M». 21 /M 

at PopuliHoB |)«)KllDii nulllpltMl bf 041 l»iw/a(>tu/)irtr (I»«<1 ■» liWoiKal diti) 



Is 

<» S. 






8^ 



SCHEDULE M 
REGION OF HALTON ESTIMATES 



Table M.l 
Existing System 
Region of Haiton 





W«tc Gmcntcd 

<|0IUI«*) 

19»1 


RMidcntial 
IVvt* G«tMnltd 

S-FHhldf 


Rtaidantial 
WMte Generated 

(tonne*) 
M'FHMda 


Rcaidential 

Diversion 

<lonne«> 

1992 


ReaidentUI 

WMtc Landmicd 

(bydiffemicc) 

1991 


Coatfa»Hwn 

olDispoacd 

Wast* 

' % 


ToUJ Residential WiMe (lonna) 


135,193 


112,375 


22,818 


46,393 


88,800 




P«p«T 

Newspaper 

Corrugated cardboard (OCC) 

Mixed paper 


22,978 

3,544 

21,511 


18,472 4,506 

. W& 695 

17,293 4,218 


15,923 
2,177 


7,055 

1,367 

21,511 


8 
2 
24 


Subtotal (Paper) 


48,034 


38,614 


9,420 


18,100 


29,934 


34 


Glaaa 


6,844 


5302 


U42 


4,944 


1,900 


2 


Tinplale Steel (fenouat 

Aluminum (non-fcmua) 

Plastic 

PET 

HOPE 

Other Plastic 


5,007 
1,344 

282 

477 

7,063 


m 

384 

5,678 


887 
264 

55 

94 

U85 




• 






Subtotal (Tin, Alum,PlaaMc) 


14,173 


11,489 


2,684 


3,650 


10,523 


12 


Oiganici 
Food wastes 
Yard waste 


30,800 
18,352 


24,760 
18,352 


6,040 



2,953 
16,390 


27347 
1,963 


; 


Subtotal (OrBanica) 


49,153 


43,113 


6jil40 


19,343 


29,809 


34 


Wood Waatc 


1,100 


884 


216 




1,100 




ConalTUction/DcmoliUon Waatc 


2,078 


1,670 


407 


356 


1,722 




Disposable Diapen 


3,667 


2,948 


719 




3,667 




Texti lea/LeatheiyRubbcr 


5,622 


4,520 


1,103 




5,622 




CNhcr 


4,522 


3,635 


•887 




4,522 




SubManWood- Other) 


\€,m 


13,657 


3332 


356 


16,633 


19 


TOTAL 


135,193 


1II;37S 


2231B 


46,393 


88,800 


100 



Rcsidrntial Divctaion = 34% 
Notes: 

1 ) Comportbon atlnulcs bwcd on E«t Yoik daU from ■Re»ld«iti«l W.»le Composition Study, Vol I ot tht Otil»rio W»sle Comp Study", Gort M Slonie Ltd , )»n/91 («d. yard wul«). 

2) Yard Waile <a)inp. goissted) data froni The FTiysicaJ ard Economic DimcnaUm* of Municipal Solid Wast* in Ontario", CH2MHill Ejig. Lid ., Nov/91 

3) While Goods (comp. gmarsted) asiimal* (included in 1 inplate Swl totaU from "RisideKial WasI* Comp. Study, Vol I o( Ihe Ontario Watte Comp, Study", G fc S Ltd., 1 990 

4) Relative (dasUcs composition based on Beck et al, 1992 

5) HouMliold data provided by Hardy Stcvenaon h Assodales, 1994 . 

6) DIvsiion esUmalca provided by Region of Haiton, 1993 

7) Number of backyard composlas provided by Re^on of Haiton staff, 1993 

8) Households: S-F-73,258;Seml/Town/Row. 16,536; Low Rise-5,418;M-F- 16,374 NotelhalSeml/Towi/Rowirdud«i with &^F; Low Rise included with M-F for this analysis. 

9) Refer to Chapter 4 lor general assumptions; Chapter 9 for Region of Hilton sptdlic assumpBotw. 



<» s. 

f^ 5 



I 



Is- 



I- 



Table M.2 

Existing/Committed System 

Region of Halton 





IteaUcnKal 

tVwt>G«a«ntcd 

(kttiiMa) 

1W1 


RaaidcnHal 

Waste Ccneraied 

(tonilea) 

S-FHhlda 


ReaMenUa) 

(tMAM) 

M>FHhlda 


Rawdcntial 

Dnranioii 

(loiuict) 

19M 


Additional 

Divenion 

ExisHng/ 

CommlKed 


Total 
Rcndcniial 
DivtlllDii 


RasMenHal 

WMULasulBlkd 

Off dlffeitncc^ 

1993 


oTDiapoMd 

Waat* 

% 


Total Residential Waste (tonnes) 


135,193 


112^75 


22318 


46,393 


5,895 


52288 


82,905 




F«|)cr 

Newspaper 

Conugated cardboard (OCC) 

Mixed paper 


22,978 

3,544 

21,511 


18,472 

2,849 

17,293 


4,506 

695 

4,218 


15,923 
2,177 


4,515 


15,923 
2,177 
4,515 









Subtotal (Fapcf ) 


48,034 


38,614 


9,420 


18,100 


4,515 


22,615 


25,419 





GlMa 


6JM* 


5,502 


1,342 


4,944 


15 


4,959 


1,885 


2 


Tinplale Steel (femmal 

AliunJnum (non-ferniiisl 

Plaatic 

PET 

HOPE 

Other Plastic 


5,TO7 
1,344 

282 

477 

7,063 


4,120 
1,081 

m 

384 

5,678 


887 

264 

55 

94 

1,385 




15 

m 

m 

m 







Subtotal 4Tiiv AlonvFlaalicI 


14,173 


11,489 


2^6^ 


3,650 


520 


4,170 


10,003 


12 


Oiganica 

Food wastes ' 

Yard waste 


30,800 
18,352 


24,760 
18,352 


6,040 



2,953 
16,390 


575 
270 


3328 
16>60 






Subtotal (Oisania) 


49,153 


43,113 


6,040 


19,343 


845 


20,188 


28,964 


35 


Wood Waat* 


1,100 


884 


216 









i,iro 






2ja7B 


1,670 


407 


356 




356 


1,722 




Diapooablc Diapeta 


3,667 


2,948 


719 









3,667 




Tcxtilca/Ualhci/Rubber 


5,622 


4,520 


1,103 









5,622 




Other 


4,522 


3,635 


887 









4,522 




Subiiliiiifwiwd-Otifiiri 


16,989 


13,657 


3332 


356 





356 


16,633 


20 


TOTAL 


135,193 


112^75 


22,818 


46,393 


5,«95 


52,2M 


«Z,905 


«9 










Residential Divenion = 


39% 







Notea: 

1) Compoaltlon stiinita bacd on EmI York dita from -RMidBiail W»»lt Composition Study, Vol I of the Ontiho W«t» Comp. Study", Gore h Stotri* Ltd., )mi/91 Crad yard wute). 

2) Yird Wmt« (eomp. goMnlcd) d*U from The rhydcal md Economic Dimeiuiani of Municipal Solid WMte in Onl«rio", CH2MHUJ Eng. Lid., Nov/»I 

3) White Good» (comp. gtnentcd) «lim»l* (indudtd In Tinpljtc Sl«H lulil) from •■R«id™iiil Waste Camp. Study. Vol. I of Ihc Onlirio Waste Comp Study", G & S Ltd., IWO 

4) Rdallve plaallcs compoailion based on Beck el al, 1992 ■ ^ • 

5) Household data provided by Hardy Slevenion* Assodales, 199t . , "-i ' . ' 

6) Divenion cillmates provided by Region of I lalton, 1993 t 

7) Number of backyaid cooipoeten provided by Region of Haltor staff, 1993. 

«) HouHholds: S-F- 73,I5»; Semi/Town/Row - 1A.S36; Law Ri» - 5,418; M-F - 16,374. Note that Semi/Town/Row Induded wilh S^F; Low Rise included with M-F for Ihia analyiia. 
9) Refer to Chapta 4 for general Miumpbofu; Chapter 9 for Region of HaJtonipedftcaaaumptioni. _ 






s. 



I 



5 



SCHEDULE N 
IC&I WASTE ESTIMATE TABLES 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE N — IC&I WASTE ESTIMATE TABLES 

Tables N-1 through N-6 present the estimated generation rates and the waste composition by 
major SIC group (excluding C&D), and the quantities of waste potentially subject to the 3Rs 
Regulations and NAPP (if generators of all sizes were subject to the regulations), for each 
GTA Region and for the entire GTA. These were used to estimate the potential diversion 
under the Existing/Committed System. 

Tables N-7 through N-12 are similar tables for the Extended 3Rs Regulations and NAPP, 
which were used to estimate potential diversion under the Extended 3Rs System. 

Tables N-1 3 and N-14 are similar tables for the entire GTA only, for the Expanded 3Rs 
Regulations and the Expanded 3Rs Regulations with Organics respectively, which were used 
to estimate potential diversion under System 4 and System 5. 

Tables N-1 5 through N-26 present projections of waste generated, waste diverted through 
source reduction, reuse and recycling and waste requiring disposal in landfills over the 
planning period from 1996 to 2015. 



May 1994 Page N-1 



TABLE N-1 

Eatiinttcd Potentiil Divenipn 

Exifting/Committed 

for Major SIC Cioupi for Region of Durham 



1 

1-™ 




• 










19! 


>2 


























UnM 

CCMttkUMI 


t 

occ 


1 


3 


4 

CUm* 




« 7 B 




AnhI 


11 
KM 


« 




total 




1 Primary 


Compocition Ccnaated (%) 

Generated (lonnea) 

Potential Divenkm (tonnea) 


0.39 


734% 

402 
201 


0.0* 




10.1* 

174 

23 


0.0* 




ii.9* 

204 
51 


53* 
92 
31 


0.0* 




0.0* 





22% 

38 


0.0* 



0.0* 



31.8* 
547 


152* 
261 
52 


100.0* 

1,719 

358 




2 Manufacturing 


Compowlion Generated (%) 

Goisatcd (tonna) 

Potential Divnion (tonnea) 


1.56 


11.6* 
7,252 
7,252 


32% 
2J031 
2,032 


19.2* 

17,007 

6346 


2.1* 

1J99 
139 


13.1* 
8,185 
8,185 


63* 
3,914 
3,914 


0.1* 
63 
63 


0.0* 
9 
9 


8.8* 
5tS08 
i754 


. 2.0* 
1,265 


0.8* 
531 


183% 
11,468 
11,468 


143* 
9,063 
1,813 


100.0* 
62390 
45334 




Cdmmunlatton / 
Utilitica 


Compoaltlon Geno-ated (%) 

Cowaled (tonnea) 

Potential Divnlon (tonnea) 


0.56 


13.0* 

1,175 

58B 


3.9* 
356 
178 


2BS% 

2370 
657 


23% 

205 

97 


11.2* 

1,012 

379 


7.8* 
699 
292 


0.8% 
74 
46 


03* 
23 
15 


123* 

1,110 

139 


1.9* 
168 


0^% 
19 


45% 
406 
101 


13.2* 

1,191 

238 


100.0* 
9,008 
2,730 




5 Trade: Wliol<ul« 


Compoaitian Generated (%) 

Ccnvaled (tonnea) 

Potential Dlvsalon (lonnea) 


I.ZZ 


27.0* 

1,747 

874 


1.0* 
65 


IIS* 
744 

335 


0.8* 
52 
23 


4.0* 
259 
116 


25* 

199 

72 


0.0* 




0.0* 




16.7* 

1,081 

486 


9.0* 
324 


0.8% 
52 


22.0* 

1,424 

712 


8.7* 
566 
113 


100.0% 
6^72 
Z731 




6 Trade: ReUil 


Compoailkin Generated («) 

Genaated (tonnea) 

Potential Divmion (tonnea) 


1.09 


24.7* 
6,285 
6,285 


113* 
2,879 
2,879 


27.9* 

7,107 

290 


3.7* 
955 
899 


29* 
743 
297 


0.4* 
93 
62 


5.9* 
1313 

757 


0.1* 
20 
10 


4.8* 
1,228 


11.8* 
Z996 


0.7% 
186 


1.4* 
357 


4.4* 

1,119 
224 


100.0% 
25,481 
11363 




7 FinandaL Inaurana 
jtRcalEatate 


Compoaition Gcnsated (%) 

Gowrated (tonnea) 

Potential Div«t«lon (tonnea) 


0.19 


9.7* 
139 
139 


2.1* 
30 
30 


SO.l* 
718 
609 


3.1* 
45 
40 


2.8* 
40 
20 


1.9* 
27 
18 


l.I* 
16 
8 


05* 
8 
4 


75* 

108 


7.7* 
110 


0.8* 
12 


23* 
33 


103* 
148 
30 


100.0* 

1/431 

891 




B SeivicK 

Non-Commcrdal 


Compoaltlon Oncrated (%) 

CenCTaled (lonnea) 

Potential Divtnion (tonnM) 


0.75 


«.6« 
1,220 
1,220 


4.8* 
888 
888 


30.0* 
5346 

277 


1.8* 
326 


11.2% 

2,070 

994 


115* 
2,130 
1,0S3 


0.2* 
37 
19 


0.1* 

19 

9 


101* 
1,874 


10.0* 
1,849 


6.7% 
1,238 


1.0* 
IBS 


60* 

1,105 

221 


100.0* 

18/488 

4,974 




9 Servios: 
Commercial 


Compoaitian Generated («) 

Generated (tonnea) 

Potential Dlvetaion (tonnea) 


0.86 


13J* 
2.970 
2,970 


2.5* 
S43 

543 


25 J2* 
5347 
1,451 


10.6* 
2,105 


5.4* 

1,194 

119 


2.7* 
602 
4«2 


2.6* 
573 
286 


0.7% 

150 

75 


53% 
1,160 


2S-9* 
i715 


0.8% 
185 


1.7* 
373 


3.1* 
682 
136 


100.0% 

2t034 

8,168 


*l: 


10 Public 

Admlniatntion 


Comporilion Ccntnted (») 
Generalad (tonnea) 
Potoidal Ovcralon (tonnea) 


0.23 


10.0* 
222 
222 


0.0* 




38.0* 
844 

219 


5.0* 
111 
100 


3.0* 
67 
33 


1.7* 
37 
25 


0.0% 




0.0* 




7.0% 
1S5 


2.0* 
44 


0.0% 



0.0% 



333% 
740 
148 


100.0% 

2,720 

748 




Total tCU 
Waale Stream 


r.oinpoBltk)n (% total) 
Gensated (tonnea) 
PotcnUal Divcralan (lonnea) 




14* 
2M13 
19,751 


5* 
6,792 
6349 


24* 
35,252 
10,401 


4* 

5331 
4318 


9* 
13,774 
10,196 


5* 
7,752 
5,948 


2* 
1276 
1,179 


0* 
229 
122 


8% 
U262 
i379 


8* 
U470 




1* 

2.223 



10% 
14,792 
U2S1 


10* 
14,876 
2,975 


100* 

149/443 

77398 






i§ 









n 



I 



f 



TABLE N-2 

Ealiaialed Piriailial Dlvcnion 

Eidiliiig/ContaniHcd 

for Mi^or SIC Cimip* for Mctrapolitm Toionlo 

1992 






■^^NwWMfc 


J,';: :;■■;.-., /■;..:!:::;;::■., , ,■ 


iKSiSiiissaM 


t 

0£C 


t 
ONP 


9 


■:-. i 

mm: 


1 


• I Til 

M— gM. MDR 1 inrr 


9 




u 


Wm4 


u 


Tm^ 






t PriBurr 


Conporitlan C«Hnt«l («) 
PolaiUai Dlva^an (tonMi> 


0.83 


139% 

no 

405 


00% 




88% 

512 
67 


0.0% 





168% 
980 
245 


10.0% 
585 

196 


00% 




00% 





22% 

IX 


0.0% 



0.0% 



27.4% 
1396 


205% 

U19 

244 


100.0% 
51831 
1.156 




2 Minufictuilng 


Cocipodboci Cowalcd (%) 

CoMntod (lauw) 

PottnUal DlvirMan (tonnM) 


1.70 


M3% 

50.245 
50,245 


19% 
lOJMl 
lOJMI 


212% 
78,093 
66,169 


1.9% 
6,555 
6,555 


9.9% 
3i934 
34,934 


5.2% 
18J9S 
18,295 


0.3% 
1,083 
1,083 


0.1% 
206 
206 


91% 
31,988 
15,994 


51% 
17,919 


06% 
2.166 


14.9% 
52339 
52339 


133% 
47.456 
9.491 


100.0% 
351341 
265374 






Coouminlatm/ 
UttbUa 


CompaHllanCoHTcUd (K> 

CaHnMddonnv) 

Poioitial CMvcnlan (lonns) 


0.74 


132* 
10,128 

5,0U 


5 3% 
4M1 

2,020 


27 8% 
21J00 
5,445 


30% 
1314 
1,099 


13.1% 

io,aa 

3i76S 


9.6% 
7J11 

3,052 


13% 
975 
609 


0.3% 
254 
158 


116% 

8,842 
1,105 


3.0% 
2J92 


03% 


36% 

1.749 

687 


80% 
6X» 
1J18 


100.0% 
74348 
24.227 






S Tndc Whola<k 


CooipiMlllan CwntHl («) 
Coiaitod (toniH*) 


1,«) 


27 0* 
23,150 
11,075 


1.0% 
■20 


115% 
9AM 
4,245 


o.»« 

656 
295 


35% 
Z896 
1,309 


20% 

U7B 

755 


00% 




00% 




167% 
13,700 
6.165 


50% 
4,102 


0.8% 
656 


22.0% 
18,048 
9,024 


96% 
73S6 
1379 


100.0% 
81038 
X443 






t TndciUl<a] 


CompMlllan CMslcd («) 

GoMntodftcniM) 

Potabal DIvwion (lomt) 


1.29 


2t7» 
51,172 
51,172 


111% 
73M7 
23>47 


286% 

99,223 

2,416 


3.7% 
7,705 
6,935 


2J% 
5^239 
1112 


04% 
727 
487 


5.7% 
11,856 
5,928 


01% 
206 

103 


5.0% 
10343 


12.1% 
25,110 


0.7% 
133S 


14% 
23M 


37% 
7>IS 
1329 


IW.0% 

207343 

94330 






7 Hnwidal, liuuniKi 
kXalbW* 


Cofnparidon C««il«l («) 

CoMTttoiKbaiiMi) 

Poleitlal Dhrailai (laniwi) 


0.23 


9.2% 
3J07 


20% 
740 
740 


SZO% 
11,956 
15,923 


33% 
1J73 
1,146 


25% 
919 
460 


22% 
789 
S2» 


14% 
502 
251 


07% 
248 
124 


8.1% 
2.«2 


7.7% 
Z818 


0.6% 
211 


1.6% 
584 


83% 

3,118 

624 


100.0% 
3<t,4B2 
231167 




tit 


S Scrvioii: 

Non-Caamwdil 


Conpodtlan Gmmlii 1%) 


091 


«&% 

12,462 
]2.4«2 


t7% 
9J19 
9,019 


30.0% 

56,977 

2,8*9 


1.7% 
3,238 
2,914 


113% 
21,360 
10.286 


11.5% 
21.901 

10J35 


0.2% 
355 
178 


01% 

178 

89 


10J;% 

19351 


10.0% 
18,992 


6.7% 
12410 


0.9% 
1,777 


61% 
11,4M 
2J99 


100.0% 
189,922 

sagao 




9 SBvka: 


CanpiMillon Cowatcd («) 

CcMnUd<tanM) 

PolotUal Dlvanloii (tonm) 


OW 


11.S« 
32.W3 
3a.»3 


33% 
9,269 
9,269 


29.1% 
81,092 
29,553 


9.1% 
25.468 
22,922 


68% 

19.041 
1.904 


40% 
11.099 
8J79 


28% 
7JK» 
3.904 


0.7% 
2,011 
1,005 


6.0% 
16,668 


208% 
58,006 


07% 
Z017 


1.4% 
33SS 


33% 
9JO 
13B3 


100.0% 
I7«3M 
1U1S2 






10 PuMic 

AdoilnlabiUan 


Caoipoalliai Cansat^ <%) 
C«Mnt«t(lniniil 
FMntlal DivmlDn (toniiaa) 


0.29 


10.0% 


0.0% 




380% 
10,405 

2,ms 


5.0% 
1,369 
1J32 


3.0% 
821 
411 


16% 
428 
217 


0.0% 




00% 




7.0% 
1,917 


2.0% 
548 


00% 




0.0% 



334% 

9,iaB 

1331 


100.0% 

27382 

9JDS 






Total ICU 
WHicSlnun 


CoaipoalHon (« UKat) 
Gnoatvt (lonnaa) 
PatvHil Dlwalon (louiai) 




14.8% 
lffi,97D 
10,426 


4.6% 
57,597 
54,756 


26.8% 
338,991 
129,373 


3.9% 
48379 
43,098 


7.7% 
5SC424 


50% 
61,812 
43,315 


18% 
22^79 
11,953 


0.2% 
3.102 
1,685 


8.4% 
105,890 
23,264 


103% 

129,718 




u% 




6.7% 
8<M2 
tIJSO 


8.2% lOOM 
1031339 lJH,4aO 
20368 615L113 


SI 



?3 



% 
^ 



TABLE N-3 

Ealimiled Potential Divcnion 

ExifUng/Cominllled 

for Mijor SIC Cmtpt for York Region 

1992 



Oi » «y 



XMJSSSSSm 



I Primwr 



2 Mwufacluiing 



4 TnjvpottaHon/ 
CoovintMilatlon/ 

UUUttB 

5 Tndtr. Wholtulc 



« TndeiMuI 



7 Hnutdal, liNunna 
li Red E>Me 



a Swka: 

Non-Conuncrdil 



9 SovIcm: 
ComDMRlal 



10 PubUc 






ToUlICU 
WulcStniiin 



CooipiMltton CawratHl <%) 

Ccixnlcd (toniMi) 

Pottnliil Dhrtnlan (toniMt) 

Cooipnilian CsMralMJ (%) 

Ccmntad (lomMi) 

Po(«H*l DIvvilan (lonnc*) 



Comixaltlon Coivaicd (H) 

C*n«fal«d (tonne*) 

PiXeiUi) Dlv<nlan (tofam) 

OmporiUon CsMratcd («) 

Ccnnlad (Imumi) 

Polaillil Dlvo^on (loniw*) 

CottipoitUtm Cowratad <%) 

CoMntad (lannM) 

PoloitUl DiTeikin (lontMi) 

CoDiporitton Cawtlcd <«) 

Ccna-alad (lonna) 

Poltnllal Dlvsrion (tonna) 

CompoaWon CoHralcd (%) 

C«Mral«l (l«UM*) 

FotcnUal DIvmlon donna) 

Cooporftton Cowalcd <%) 

Ccnaalad (lonna) 

PotoilUl DtvnMon (lonnB) 



CaatpoalHon Cowilcd (%) 
Cn«ntad<t«aHi) 
FbtailiJ Dlvntsn (tonnad 



Canpiaitlan<«lotiI> 
GaicnMd (tMinM) 
PolcnIUI Dlwtion (lonna) 



055 



193 



1.07 



171 



1.50 



0.16 



100 



109 



0.31 



oec 



22.7% 
679 
339 

IliK 

12,575 
)2,S7S 

14 1% 

1,032 

770% 

9.251 
4,«27 

235* 
I3,«9 
]3.«9 

97% 
440 
440 

67% 
1,861 

l,S61 

11.6% 
«,H9 
6.H9 

100% 
2« 
249 






26% 
47,379 

41,3a) 



0.0% 



18% 
2337 
2J37 

57% 

lao 

415 

1.0% 
343 



11.0% 
6J90 
6JS0 

1\% 
9S 
95 

5.0% 
U73 
1,373 

3.0% 
1,773 
1,773 

0.0% 








8% 

13,541 
12,783 



10.5% 

314 

41 

20.«% 
20,t94 
17,429 

240% 
3,522 

900 

11.5% 
3,941 
1,774 

290% 

16,528 

U3 

49 8% 
2J52 
1J91 

30.0% 

RJ10 

415 

29.8% 
17,*79 
6,162 

38.0% 
945 
246 



19% 
74,184 
29,502 



00% 




1.8% 
1,795 

1.795 

3.3% 
483 

230 

0.8% 
274 
123 

15% 
1,971 

1,774 

31% 
140 
126 

1.9% 
535 
461 

8.6% 
5,121 
4,609 

5.0% 
124 
112 



6% 
10,443 
9,249 



11,3% 
338 

85 

128% 
1Z730 
12,730 

149% 
Z191 

a22 

38% 
1,289 

S80 

3.0% 

1,691 

676 

3.0% 
136 
(6 

110% 
3,059 
1,455 

6.9% 

4092 

409 

30% 
75 
37 






11% 
25,600 
16,862 



HOVt 



42% 
125 
42 

67% 
6,6S7 

6,657 

11.2% 

1,640 
685 

23% 
772 
347 

03% 
189 
126 

24% 

106 
71 

115% 
3,181 
1,569 

44% 

24*1 
2.064 

19% 
46 
31 



7% 
15,296 
11J93 



00% 




02% 
182 
182 

10% 
140 
RS 

00% 



62% 
3,560 
1.780 

11% 

51 
26 

2% 
66 
33 

2.6% 

1431 

816 

00% 








2% 
5,631 
2.924 



::f ... 



00% 




0.0% 
25 
25 

0.4% 
57 
36 

00% 



0.1% 
60 
30 

0.5% 
24 

.12 

0.1% 
33 
17 

0.7% 
431 
215 

00% 






0% 
629 
334 



21% 
61 



83% 
BJ96 
4,14* 

124% 

1.822 

228 

167% 
5,724 
2J76 

51% 
2,916 



7J% 
330 



10.0% 
2,767 



6.1% 
3,617 



7.0% 
174 



. it-:: 



4% 

25,70* 
6,951 



0.0% 




2.8% 
2,772 



2.0% 
299 



5.0% 
1,714 



11.6% 
6,629 



77% 
349 



10.0% 
2,770 



20.1% 
11,930 



2.0% 

SO 



0% 

26,513 





« 



0.0% 




0.6% 
587 



03% 
46 



0.8% 
274 



0.8% 
445 



0.9% 

39 



6.6% 
1.618 



0.8% 
475 



0.0% 




0% 

3,683 





348% 

1,040 



18.8% 
18,773 
18,773 

36% 
533 

133 

22.0% 
7340 
3,770 

1.4% 
812 



24% 

107 



U% 
332 



1.7% 
1,025 



0.0% 




14% 
30,161 
22,676 



rMt 



14J% 
434 

87 

1IJ% 

ii.ne 

2JS9 

7.0* 

1,033 

207 

9.2% 

3,149 

630 

43% 

516 

9.9% 
449 
90 

S.B% 

1,995 
319 

3.4% 

2J03* 

407 

33.1% 
814 
166 



100.0% 

2,990 

593 

IDO.0% 
99,717 

79J09 

1000% 
14662 
4775 

100.0% 
34273 
KC6 

IW.0% 
57,082 
2Si245 

100.0% 
451* 
Z819 

100.0% 

27,700 

7,524 

ira.o« 

59,23* 

231304 

100 0% 
839 



3% 100% 

njKM 30I«iS 

4779 199,034 



•Q 



TABLE N-4 

Eatimited Fotcntlil Diversion 

Exitting/Conunltted 

for Major SIC Cnnipi for Peel Region 

1992 





:', ■■,--■■ •■■" ■ - : 


Unit C«iM>tlo« 


1 

occ 


1 

out 


3 


4 
Claa* 


S 


t 7 * 

Notk-Fcre HDA tTt 


t 
FliMie 


10 

Pood 


11 

y*i4 


11 
Wood 


U 
Other 


Told 


1 Prtmary 


Compoaltton Generated (%) 

Ceno-atcd (ionnea) 

Potential Divenlon (lonnea) 


_ 062 


18.0% 
44« 
223 


00% 





98% 
243 
32 


0% 




131% 

325 

81 


79% 
197 
6* 


00% 




0% 




36% 
90 


o:o% 




00% 



29 7% 

737 


178% 

440 

88 


100 0% 

1477 

490 


2 Mimu/acluring 


Compeajtion Coisaled (%) 

Cencnrted (tonne*) 

Potential Dlvcnlon (tonne*) 


1 7S 


151% 
2S,S44 
25,544 


2»% 

4,9«e 

4.968 


IB.5% 
31,236 
25,435 


10% 
3356 
3456 


129% 
21.810 
21,810 


6 4% 
10.858 
10,858 


02% 
401 
401 


01% 
128 
128 


97% 
16,452 
8,226 


5.9% 
9,940 


0.6% 
1,067 


15.0% 
25347 
25347 


107% 
18,095 
3,619 


100.0% 
169.203 
129,693 


4 TniuportaUon/ 
Communlcibon/ 

UUUUc* 


CJKnpoaltlDn Generated (%) 

Gentfaled (tonne*) 

Potential Divcnion (tonna) 


1.09 


136% 
6,73« 
3,363 


54% 
2,«90 
1.345 


28.7% 
14.202 
3,630 


32% 
1563 

742 


148% 
7,301 
1738 


11 1% 
5.467 
2,283 


1.0% 
482 
301 


04% 
184 
115 


10.9% 

5,404 

675 


21% 
1.046 


03% 
147 


36% 

1,793 

448 


4 9% 

2396 

479 


100.0% 
49,401 
16,120 


5 Trade: Wholesale 


Compoaitton CoMrated ^%} 

OnCTtled (tonne*) 

Potenbal Divcnion (tonne*) 


1.57 


27.0% 
13,03« 

6,51 S 


1.0% 
483 


11.5% 
5352 
2,499 


0.8% 
38« 
174 


3.8% 

1,816 

817 


2.3% 

1,089 

490 


00% 




0.0% 




16.7% 
8,063 
3,628 


5.0% 
2,414 


0.8% 
386 


220% 
10,622 
5311 


9.2% 
4,433 

887 


1000% 
48,2M 
20323 


« TndeiReUll 


Compoailion Cowalcd (%) 

Geno-atcd (loitno) 

Potential Dlvoalon (tonne*) 


1.11 


248% 
4,466 
4,466 


116% 

2,087 
2,087 


27.4% 

4,934 

199 


38% 
686 

617 


31% 
557 
223 


04% 
«8 
46 


61% 

1,096 

548 


01% 

19 
10 


43% 

773 


113% 
2,036 


0,7% 
123 


13% 

277 


4 9% 
686 

177 


100.0% 
18,010 
8373 


7 Financial. Iiuuranct 
A Real Eitale 


CciMnted (tonne*) 
Potential Divarsion'(lDnne*) 


0.2S 


9.9% 
467 
467 


20% 
96 
96 


494% 
2,325 
1,953 


30% 
141 

127 


32% 
149 
74 


2.8% 
130 

87 


1.0% 
48 
24 


0-5% 
24 
12 


73% 
352 


73% 
355 


09% 
42 


23% 
116 


9.8% 

461 

92 


100.0% 
4,707 
2,933 


e Service*; 

Non-Comnmdal 


Compoailion CensBled (%) 

OnCTated (tonne*) 

Potential Dlvenlon (tonne*) 


0.90 


6.8% 
1X7 
2,387 


S.0% 
1,769 

1,769 


30.0% 

10,604 

530 


10% 
699 
629 


11.0% 
3,887 
1,844 


11.5% 
4.056 
1,999 


3% 
89 
44 


01% 
44 

22 


9.9% 
3316 


10.0% 
3335 


65% 
7,105 


13% 
»3 


5.7% 

2,013 

403 


100.0% 
3S34S 
9,628 


9 Stniom: 
CommcrcUl 


CompoetHon Coicratcd (%l 

Gensatcd (tonnea) 

Potential DIvenion (tonne*) 


■ 1.06 


119% 
8,645 
8,645 


3.9% 
2,82« 
2,828 


28.8% 

20,904 

7,199 


9.5% 
6J7S 
6,188 


6.7% 

4.889 

489 


4 2% 
3,052 
2,441 


29% 
2.118 
1,059 


0.7% 
528 
264 


59% 
4323 


211% 

15332 


0.6% 
448 


0.9% 
660 


2.8% 

2,061 

412 


1000% 
77.6*7 
29325 


10 F^iblic 

AdmlnlttraUon 


Compoaltlon Gtneraled («) 
Cownled (liniM«) 
PoloiUal Dlvoslon (kmne*) 


0.34 


100% 
553 
S53 


00% 




38.0% 

2,101 

54« 


50% 
276 
249 


30% 

166 

S3 


14% 

76 
51 


0.0% 




0.0% 





7,0% 
387 


2 0% 
111 


0.0% 



0.0% 



33.6% 

13S9 

372 


100.0% 

5328 
1J53 


TolallCU 
Waste Stream 


Compa«iaoo(« total) 
Oneialcd (tonne*) 
Poloitld Dlv<nto(i (tonne*) 




154% 

62,270 
52.166 


3.7% 
14,921 
13,093 


217% 
92,101 

42,023 


34% 
13,9«3 

12,082 


10.1% 
40,900 
28,1(0 


6.2% 
24,992 
18321 


10% 
4,234 

2378 


0.2% 
927 
551 


97% 
393*0 
12330 


8.6% 

34.769 




1.1% 

4318 



9.9% 
39,995 
31.106 


8.0% 

32.645 

6329 


100.0% 
405.616 
218.938 



Cl 



S- 






ea 



TABLE N-5 

Ealimatcd Potenllal Divenion 

Exitliii^CoininlHed 

for Major SIC Croup* for Hilton Region 

1992 





:;'>:: .,.'■'■■.'■- 




1 

occ 


1 

ONT 


3 


Clas* 


Feraiiw 


» T ■ 


-• 
riirtle 




it 


U i 
Wood 


11 
Other 


tcUl 






1 Primiry 


Compoaitjon Generated <%) 

Oner ated (lonncil 

Polcntiat [Nvenlon (tonnes) 


033 


20.0« 
223 
112 


0.0% 





91% 

103 

13 


00% 





145% 
163 
41 


69% 

77 
26 


00% 




0,0% 





1.2% 
14 


0.0% 



00% 




319% 
355 


165% 
184 

37 


100 0% 

1,120 

228 




2 Manufacturing 


Composition Ccncraled <%) 

Ctncratcd (lonna) 

PolenUal Olvcnion (tonnaa) 


0.96 


13 0% 
4,131 
VI31 


33% 

1,038 
1,038 


16.5% 
5,251 
4,126 


22% 
708 
70S 


■ 15.7% 
4,980 
4,980 


7 4% 
2,360 
2>0 


02% 
50 
50 


0.0% 
10 
10 


8.7% 
2,758 
1J79 


34% 

1.074 


0.8% 
249 


164% 
5,202 
5,202 


124% 100.0% 

3,«Z2 31.73S 

784 24.769 




i TranipottaUan/ 
CamnunlaUon/ 

vaaotm 


Comporilion GeMratnl (%) 
Canvated (tonnca) 

Potoitilll Dlvjernm (tmuws) 


053 


]3S% 
482 
241 


5.2% 
ISO 
90 


26.7% 
933 

69 


30% 

105 
50 


143% 
499 
187 


10.6% 
370 
154 


0.8% 
28 
IB 


0.4% 

13 

8 


11.9% 
415 

52 


1.7% 
61 


05% 

10 


39% 
137 
34 


7.4% 
260 
52 


1000% 

1492 

9SS 






5 Tndr Wholfulc 


Compoailion Ccneratad 1%) 

Ccncatad (loniMa) 

Potcnbal Divanlon <tonn<a) 


087 


27.0% 

1,7» 

894 


1.0% 


115% 
762 
343 


08% 
53 
24 


3.8% 
255 
115 


2.3% 
153 
69 


0% 




0.0% 





16.7% 

1,106 

498 


5.0% 
331 


08% 
53 


22.0% 

1.457 

729 


9.1% 
600 
120 


100.0% 
6,625 
1791 






i Trade Retail 


ComporiUon Generated {%} 

Censaled (lonnei) 

Polenaal CMveraion (toniwa) 


07* 


244% 

4,127 
4,127 


ll«% 

1,960 

1,960 


280% 

4,743 

193 


3.8% 
639 

575 


2.9% 
494 
198 


4% 
60 
41 


6.1% 

■ 1,027 
513 


0.1% 
7 


46% 
786 


118% 

2,003 


07% 
124 


1-4% 
229 


4J% 
728 
146 


100.0% 
16,996 

7,759 






7 Hnandal. Inauruia 
h R«l Eitalc 


Compoaidon Gensated 1%) 
Generated (tonnei) 

PolenUal Divenion (tonne*) 


012 


9.7% 
107 

107 


2.0% 
22 
22 


503% 
555 

46« 


3.2% 
35 
31 


28% 
31 

16 


2.2% 
24 
16 


11% 
13 
6 


06% 
6 
3 


78% 
86 


76% 
84 


0.8% 
8 


2.1% 
24 


98% 

108 

22 


100.0% 

1,103 

690 






B ScTvioa: 

Non-ComnMrdal 


Compoailion Gswated («) 

Generated (tonna) 

Polential Divenion (tonne*) 


o.« 


6.7% 
63S 
MS 


4.9% 
468 
4«8 


30.0% 

2,846 

142 


1.9% 
180 
162 


111% 
1.050 

500 


115% 

1,090 

538 


2% 
22 
11 


0.1% 
11 

6 


10.0% 
950 


100% 
949 


6.6% 
625 


1.2% 

no 


5.8% 
550 

110 


1000% 
9,486 
1572 




o 
2 
^ 


9 Strviwa: 


Compoailion Generated (K) 

Generated (tonnei) 

Polenlial Diverrion (tonnei) 


o.sO 


118% 
2.078 
2,078 


2.8% 
4S1 
451 


265% 
4,307 
1,223 


10.0% 
1,620 
1,458 


5.8% 

944 

94 


3.2% 
524 
419 


2.7% 
440 
220 


0.7% 
111 
56 


5J% 
S8S 


24.0% 
3,890 


0.9% 
140 


18% 
291 


3J% 
538 

108 


100.0% 
16i,214 
6^107 




10 Pubbe 

AdmlniatraUon 


Compaaltlon Cneraled («) 
Generated (tonnes) 
Pbtenttal DIvssion (tonnia) 


0.17 


100% 
116 
116 


00% 




38 0% 
440 
114 


5.0% 
58 

52 


30% 
35 
17 


1.6% 
18 
12 


0.0% 





0.0% 




7.0% 
81 


2.0% 
23 


0.0% 



0.0% 



33.4% 

387 

77 


1000% 

1,138 

309 








































Total JCJd 
WailtShMin 


Compoailion (% tota)). 
Generated (loraia) 
rolenllai Divenion (lonnea) 




27% 
13,689 
12,442 


9% 
4,185 
4,029 


14% 
19,934 
6.689 


7% 
3399 
3,061 


13% 

8,451 
6,148 


8% 
4,675 
3,634 


2% 

1,580 

S19 


0% 
166 
90 


4% 

7,081 
1,929 


0% 

8,415 




0% 

uio 




13% 

7,807 
5,965 


3% 

7,276 
1,455 


100% 
87,868 
46.261 





TABLE N-6 

EfUmttcd Potentjil Divcnion 

Undn Exliting/Cinninlttcd Sytttm 

for Mifof' SIC Cnnipi for CTA 

1W2 



2- 







1 


1 

ONP 


i 
tfm 


daa 


S 

ttaom 


f T • 


riMtk 


Id 

l>aai 


11 




OOm 


TMit 


1 PriiMry 


CotripDCltlon Gnwited (%) 

Gauriiled (tonnsl 

Potenbil Dtvcnion (lonna) 


IB.llH 
23*0 
1.280 


000% 




951% 
1344 

175 


00% 




14:22% 
2,010 

502 


760% 

1,074 

360 


000% 




00% 





136% 
333 

D 


0.00% 




000% 





30.25* 
4,276 




1796* 

1539 
508 


1000% 
14,136 
1825 


2 MurulKtuhng 


Compcaibon Orwited («> 

CcnsaMi (lonna) 

PolmUil Divtnlon (lonna) 


139511 

W,747 
«.7<7 


293% 
20,93* 
20,936 


20 60% 
147,276 
119.705 


192% 
13.714 
13.714 


1156% 
82.640 
82,640 


589% 
42,084 
42,084 


025% 
1,780 
1.780 


05* 
378 
378 


909% 
65,001 

32301 


4 61% 

32,970 




064% 
4,600 




1586% 
113328 
113328 


1164% 
90331 
I8M6 


100 0* 
711786 
5+tB?9 


4 Truufwn«tlon/ 
CommunloUon/ 
UtiUUa 


Cotnpocltton CnMnted (%) 

Cdurtted (tonna) 

PotenUil Divcnkm (tonna) 


13.U% 
30^6 
10,288 


5i9% 
8,097 
4,048 


27.71% 
42^27 
10,701 


305% 
4,670 
2,2t8 


137S% 

21,055 

7,896 


10.11% 
15,486 
6,465 


111% 
1,699 

1,062 


015* 
531 
332 


1149% 
17393 
2,199 


152* 

3.866 



028% 

424 




167* 
5,618 
1,404 


716* 
10,960 

1194 


too.o* 

153^110 
48,808 


5 Tr*dc: Whol<Hlc 


Compaction OiMTilcd (%) 

Germtcd (lonna) 

PDtwtlll Dlwnlor (tonna) 


17.00% 
«7,97* 


100% 

1,777 



1150% 
20,434 
9,195 


0.80% 

1.422 

640 


367% 
6.515 
2,932 


117% 
3.851 

1,733 


000% 




aoo* 




1670% 
29,674 
13353 


500% 
8,884 




0.80* 
1,422 




2100* 
39,091 
19346 


9.37* 
16343 
3329 


1000% 
177,688 
74.715 


« Trade: Retail 


ComptMltlan Gcno-ated («) 

GsMTitcd (tonna) 

Polmtliil DivHiior (lonim) 


24M% 
79,49» 
W,«S9 


1135% 
36,864 

36.864 


2849% 
97,5^5 

3,742 


368% 
11.956 
10,761 


270% 
8,764 

3,506 


0.35% 

1,137 

762 


5 86* 
19,052 
9326 


10% 

320 
160 


4 94% 

16,046 



1194% 

38,775 



074% 
2.414 

D 


1.41% 

4369 




399* 
11960 
2392 


100 0* 
324.851 
147,371 


7 RnindiL ImuriKa 
k Real Eililc 


CompoaiUon Cnwilcd (%) 

Coxntcd (toniMi) 

Poloitlal DtvoTtan (tonns) 


938% 
4325 


204% 
982 
987 


5142% 
24.806 

20,837 


339% 
1,633 

1,470 


264% 

1,276 

638 


123% 

1,076 

721 


131% 
630 
315 


064% 
310 
155 


7.94% 
3.828 




770% 
3,716 




65% 
312 




1.79* 
863 




888* 
4J84 

857 


1000* 
411241 

30300 


S SCTvita: 

Non-ComoMrcul 


Compwition Oiwited (%) 

Ccno-alid (lonnca) 

PotaiUil Dlvenkm (tonns) 


661% 
1B,S«5 
18,565 


4.81% 
13316 
13,516 


30 00% 
S4JS3 
4.214 


177% 
4.978 
4.480 


11 19% 
31,436 
15080 


1152% 
32358 
15,994 


020% 
570 
285 


10% 
285 
142 


10.13% 

28,458 




1000% 
28.094 




669* 

18,796 



1.01* 
2348 




5.96* 

16,757 

3A51 


1000% 

280.M3 

75,628 


9 SavlcK 
CommtrdiJ 


Compoaibon Gciwalcd (*) 

Cowstcd (tonnea) 

Poloitlal Divcnkm (tonna) 


11.91% 
53,435 
5), 435 


3J1% 
14365 
14,865 


2887% 
129.524 
45,588 


9:23% 
41,424 
37J81 


6.72% 
30,161 

3,016 


3.98% 
17,856 
14,285 


180% 
11570 
6.285 


0.73% 
3,231 
1,615 


594% 

26,653 




21 14% 
94373 




0.73% 

3,265 




1.39* 
6J44 




3.25* 
14382 
191* 


1000% 
44lt<«3 

179,286 


10 Piihlk- 

Admlntatntton 


CompotlUan Coianted («) 
Cawritfil Uonm) 
PotcnUal CHvsHan (tonna) 


1000% 

3,sn 

3,877 


000% 




38.00% 
14,734 
3431 


5.90% 
1,939 

1.745 


3.00% 

1,163 

582 


156% 
607 
406 


0.00% 




000* 
D 



700* 

2.714 




100% 
775 




0.00* 




0.00* 





33.44* 

2J93 


100.0* 
34774 


Tot*] ICU 
Walt Strewn 


CompoajtJon (« toilU 
Cffxrattd (tonna) 
PotoiUjJ Divcnion llonna) 


15% 
330,721 
295,165 


4% 

97,036 
91,211 


25% 
557,463 
217,988 


4% 

81,735 
72309 


8% 
185,018 
116,790 


5% 
115,529 
81811 


2% 
36301 
19J53 


0* 
5,053 
2,782 


9% 
190302 
48.053 


10% 
211,954 




1% 

31730 




8% 

176338 
134,278 


8% 
182.030 
36,406 


100* 
1201,212 
1,117,045 



r 



,-" *■'■■- 



TABLE N-7 

Eitimaled Potenllil Divtnion 

Extended 311 ■ 

for Mi)or SIC Group* for Rfgion of Durfiam 

1992 



W«l*CWy««Mm 






TBS" 



w^^T'r 



M» 



1 

occ 



1 

ONT 



tiff 



7 

HDpe 



rsT 



9 

rtaHc 



n 



W 



Oikar 



tatd 



I Prtmify 



2 Muufactucing 



4 Truuporlilion / 
Cosnmimlcition/ 

UtiUlics 

5 Tr<d« WholcHlr 



6 TrKJeRriul 



7 Flnuidil, liuurina 
h Rcml Eitalc 



a Srrricta: 

N on - ComnKrdal 



9 Ssvios: 
CommCTdal 



10 PuUk 

Admlniitntlon 



Cocnposltkm Gcno'stvd (%> 

CcncralMl (lonns) 

Potoibal Divevlon (lonnes) 

Compodtion Ccnttilcd (%l 

CaitfaKd (Innna) 

Fot«nti*i Divtnion (taiui««> 

CompodUan Gtnsated (%) 

PotcnUnl DIvcnian (lonna) 

Compnillon C«M»l*d («> 

Ccncr«t«l (lonna) 

PotcnUd Dlvovion (lonna) 

Compnibon CcMrttcd (%) 

CoMrated (tonna) 

PotoiUiJ Dlvnlon (lonno) 

CoinpoiUion Ccntratcd (%l 
Cais'atod (tonna) 
Fotaitlal Dlvcfilon (tonna) 

Compoaltlcn Cmb-ated (%) 

Cai0ated ((onna) 

Polsitlil Divcnlon (tonnn) 

Compoaltlan Censated (%) 

Canoatcd (loniMa) 

PoteiUal Divcnion (tonna) 

Conpoaltlaci Ccnoaicd (%) 
Cowatcd (loniMi) 
PolcnUal Divcnion (tonna) 



0» 



\M 



0% 



lU 



109 



0.19 



075 



0.86 



023 



402 
402 

116% 

7JS2 
7,252 

130% 
1,175 
1,175 

2?0» 
1.747 
1,747 

247* 
6,285 
6,285 

97% 
139 
139 

66% 
1,720 
1,220 

133% 

2,970 
2,97D 

100% 
222 
222 



0% 




32% 
2,032 
2,032 

3.9% 
356 
356 

10% 

ts 

65 

1U% 
2.S79 

2,879 

21% 
30 

30 



101% 
174 
27 

19 J% 
12,002 
6346 

285% 
2370 
U14 

115% 
744 
346 

27.9% 
7,107 

290 

50.1% 
718 



4 8% 300% 
888 5346 
888 277 



23% 
543 
543 

00% 





25.2% 
5347 
1,451 

380% 
844 
219 



0.0% 




2.1% 
1J» 
1,299 

23% 
205 
190 

8% 
52 
47 

3.7% 
955 
859 

31% 
45 
40 

1.8% 
326 
293 

10.6% 
2,339 
XlOS 

50% 
111 

100 



119% 

704 
56 

131% 
1,185 
8.185 

112% 

1.012 

519 

40% 
259 
123 

Z9% 
743 
297 

28% 
40 
30 

11.2% 

2,070 
994 

54% 

1,194 
119 

30% 
67 
33 



S.3% 
97 
51 

63% 
3,914 
3,914 

78% 
6W 
487 

25% 
159 
98 

0.4% 
93 
62 

19% 

27 
IS 

115% 
Z130 
1,053 

2.7% 
602 
482 

17% 
37 
25 



0% 



01% 
63 
63 

08% 
74 
46 

0% 



5.9% 
1,513 

757 

11% 
16 



02% 
37 
19 

2.6% 
573 
286 

0% 





00% 




0.0% 
9 
9 

0.3% 
23 
IS 

00% 



01% 
20 
10 

05% 
8 
4 

0.1% 
19 

9 

07% 
ISO 
75 

00% 





22% 
38 



88% 
5308 
Z754 

12J% 
i.no 

139 

167% 

1,081 

486 

48% 

1,228 



75% 
108 



10.1% 
I.S74 



53% 
1,160 



70% 
155 



0.0% 




2 0% 
1,265 



19% 
168 



50% 
324 



11.8% 
Z996 



77% 
110 



100% 
1.849 



25.9* 
5,715 



20% 



0.0% 




08* 
S31 



0.2% 
19 



0.8% 
52 



07% 
186 



08% 
12 



6.7%. 
1,238 



0.8* 
185 



00% 




318% 

547 



I8J% 
11.468 
11,468 

45% 
406 
101 

22 0% 

1,424 

712 

14% 

357 



23% 
13 



10% 

IBS 



1.7% 
3(73 



00% 




152% 

361 

52 

145* 
9.063 
1,813 



100.0% 

1,719 

509 

100.0* 
62J» 
4SJ34 



13.2% . 100.0% 

1,191 9.008 

238 45K 



87% 
566 

113 

44% 

1,119 
224 

10J% 
148 

30. 

60% 

1,105 

221 

31% 
682 
136 

333% 
740 
148 



1000% 
6.473 
3.737 

100.0% 
2S,4S1 
11.643 

100 0% 

1,431 

891 

100 0% 
18,488 
4,974 

100.0% 

22,014 

8,168 

100.0% 

13X 

748 






3 tji 
K 3 
o ^. 

It 
I 



Tola) ICU 

Wale Stream 



CompcdUon (% laUl) 
Caio'atcd (tonna) 
Polenlla] Divsaton (tonna) 



14% 
21,413 
21,413 



5% 
6,792 
6,792 



24% 
35JS2 
11,073 



4% 

5331 
4.933 



9% 
13,774 
10347 



5% 
7.752 
6,190 



2% 
Z276 
1,179 



0% 
229 
122 



8% 
12,263 

3,379 



8% 

12,470 





1% 
2,223 





10% 
14,792 
a2Sl 



10% 
14,876 
2,97S 



100% 
149/443 
80,684 



TABLE N^ 

E«timatcd Potentlil Divrraion 

Eitended 3Rt 

for MifoT SIC Croup* for Metropolitin Toronto 

ISIKt. 





'■■■■% . ''y.o .: ' 


-■-tm- 


1 

ooc 


1 

ONF 


1 


* 

Ctaaa 


I 

FeimH 


i * • 

NMfFm HDP£ frr 


9 

FlMlk 




It 

ya>d 


u 

Wood 


u 

OUmt 


Taltd 


1 Prtmny 


Ccn<nl*d (tonnt*) 
Polcnli*! Diveiion ((onnal 


0.83 


13.9% 
810 
810 


00% 




88% 

512 
7» 


0D% 




16.8% 100% 
980 585 

269 327 


D.0% 




0% 




2.2% 
130 


0.0% 



0.0% 



27.4% 
1596 


20.9% 

1,219 

2U 


1000% 
5.K11 
1,730 


2 Mvtufjctunnji 


Compoaition Cstvilnl <%) 

Omatad Oonna) 

PotaiUal DIvnIon (lonna) 


170 


143% 
50,245 
50,245 


29% 

10.061 
10.061 


222% 
78,093 
66,169 


19% 
6J5S 
6,555 


99% 
34,934 
3i934 


52% 
18J95 
18J95 


3% 
1,083 
1.083 


0.1% 
206 
206 


91% 
3r,9«8 
15,994 


5.1% 
17,919 


06% 
2166 


149% 
52539 
52539 


135% 
47,456 
9,491 


100.0% 
351541 
265574 


1 TniupoitaUon/ 
CommunkaUon/ 

Ulilittai 


CompoalUon CoHratnl («l 

Generated (tonnaa) 

Potential Dlvcnlcin (tonnca) 


0.74 


132% 
10,128 

10,128 


5.3% 
4,041 

4,041 


27 8% 
21,300 
10,889 


30% 
2J14 
2140 


131% 
10,053 
5,151 


9 6% 
7311 

5,099 


13% 

97S 
609 


03% 
254 
158 


116% 
8442 
1,105 


3.0% 
2292 


03% 
203 


36% 

2,7*9 
687 


80% 
6,089 
UIB 


100.0% 
74^548 
41,127 


5 Tnde Wholcule 


Compeaitlan Censated (%> 

Ccnvatcd (toiuM*) 

Polentlai DIvaalon Itonna) 


140 


27.0% 
22,150 
22,150 


1.0% 
820 
820 


11S% 
9,434 
4J87 


08% 
656 
591 


35% 
2896 
1,376 


20% 
1,678 
1,032 


00% 

D 


0% 


167% 
13,700 
6,165 


50% 
4,102 


0.8% 
656 


220% 
18,048 
9,024 


9.6% 
7,896 
1579 


100.0% 
82038 
47,124 


6 Trulr: Rctmll 


Compoaitlan Cawaled (%) 
PotmUal DIvemon <lanral 


12» 


24.7% 
51,172 
51,172 


114% 
23,647 
23,647 


286% 
S9J23 

2.416 


37% 
7,705 
6,915 


25% 
5,279 
2112 


4% 
727 
487 


57% 
tl,BS« 
5,928 


1% 
206 
103 


50% 
10,343 


121% 
25,110 


07% 
1335 


14% 
2,894 


3.7% 
7,645 
1529 


100.0% 
207,343 


7 Hnuidal, Intunnci 
* Rnl E*tal« 


CoDipoalUon Ctmntcd (%) 

Ceneratad (tonnaa) 

Poltntlal DIvenloti (ImiMb) 


0.23 


92% 
3,372 
3,372 


2.0% 
740 

740 


520% 
18,996 
15,923 


35% 
IJ73 
1.146 


35% 
919 

460 


2.2% 
7B9 
528 


14% 

502 
251 


7% 
248 
124 


81% 
2,952 


7.7% 
2J1S 


0.6% 
211 


16% 
584 


85% 

3,118 

624 


1000% 
36.482 
23.167 


8 Scrvkn: 

Non-Conunsdil 


Compoaltlon Cawatad («) 

CflMrated (tonma) 

Potential Dlvcnlan (tonra) 


091 


6 6% 
12,4«2 
12.462 


4 7% 
9,019 
9,019 


30.0% 

56,977 

2,849 


17% 
3,238 
2,914 


113% 
21,369 
10,286 


11.5% 
21,901 
10,835 


02% 
355 
178 


01% 
178 
89 


10J% 
19J51 


100% 
18,992 


6.7% 

i2ato 


09% 
1.777 


61% 
11,494 
2,299 


1000% 

in,9Z2 

50,930 


9 SiTvios: 
Conunatiil 


Compoailloii Cowrated («) 

Generated (tonne*) 

PotoiUal CHveralon (tonra) 


0» 


11.8% 
32,893 
32,893 


33% 
9,269 
9469 


29.1% 
81,09!2 
»353 


91% 
25,468 
22,922 


68% 

19,041 

1,904 


. 40% 
11,099 
8,879 


28% 
7,808 
3,904 


0.7% 
2011 
1,005 


6.0% 
16.668 


20.8% 
58,006 


0.7% 
2017 


14% 
3,895 


33% 
9J67 
1,853 


100.0% 
278J34 
1I2I82 


]0 Public 

AdsitnUtHUon 


Compoaltlon Ccntrated (») 
Pblantiil DIvaralon (tonnet) 


0.29 


100% 
2,738 
2,738 


00% 




380% 
10,4(S 
2705 


5.0% 
1,369 
1J32 


3.0% 
821 
411 


1.6% 
428 
287 


00% 





00% 




7.0% 
1,917 


2D% 

548 


0.0% 



0.0% 



334% 
9,155 
1431 


100.0% 
27J82 
9,205 


ToUllCM 

WulcSlrcun 


Compoaitlan (« total) 
Goiented (tonnct) 
Potential Dlvcnlan (tonnaa) 




148% 

185,970 
195,970 


46% 

S7J97 
S7J97 


26.8% 
336.992 
1H972 


39% 
48JJ9 
44,434 


77% 
96,292 
56,903 


5.0% 
62,812 
45,771 


18% 
22579 
11,953 


2% 
3,102 
1,685 


84% 

105,090 
23,264 


1DJ% 

129,7W 




16% 
19598 




6.7% 

Mjm 

62250 


8.2% 
1034» 
20468 


100.0% 

1,2SS,<20 

t4S,U» 






15 

--I 

3 & 






I 



TABLE N-9 

E(tiinit«l PotcnlU) Divenion 

Extended 3Ri 

for M«jor SIC Cnni|M for Yoric Region 

1992 



Mr^tCfcl 






I EVlmuy 



2 Mjmufactuiing 



4 TnmporUlion/ 
Coouivunlabon/ 
UtiliUa 

5 Tradn Wholnilf 



6 Tnde Retail 



7 Rfiwidat Iiuiinnc4 
& Roil E*Ulr 



9 StrAat: 

Non-Conunsdil 



9 Sovioci: 
Commercial 



ID PubUc 

AdminiitriQoti 



Compoiition CoMnlKl i%) 

Ccnerttcd (lonna) 

Potoitlal Divenion Oonn<«} 

Composition Caicrated (%) 

CenCTilcd (tonne*) 

Polenttil Dlvcnlon (toruio) 

Coinpo*ilion Cene-^ted (%) 

Gerwiled (lonnci) 

Pntcnllal Divailon (tonne*) 

CompoBldon Cencnlad (%) 

CcnCTded (lonne*) 

Poloibil Divenion (locuw*) 

CompodUon Coitfiteil (%) 

Cencraltd (lonna) 

Poloitiil CNvenlon (lonne*) 

Compoddan Cais^alcd 1%) 
Ceneraled (tonne*) 
PolsiUal Divenion (tonne*) 

CompodtiDn Goisitcd (%) 

Generated (tonnct) 

Potoitial Dlva«ion (lonnea) 

CompoaiUon Ccntrated (%) 

Generated (lonne*) 

Polendal Divoilon (tonne*) 

Compoaliian Coisated (%) 
Oncntcd (tonne*) 
PotmUal Dinnlon (lonne*) 



IMl GiMM*iM«n 



TolallCU 
Waile Stream 



CompaaiUbn (.% total) 
Onenled (tonne*) 
Potential Divenion (tonne*) 



1.93 



1.07 



1 71 



1.58 



02« 



100 



1.» 



31 






: I : 

ONY 



22.7* 
679 
679 

12.6% 
I2,S7S 
12,575 

14.1% 
2,064 
Z,OM 

270* 
9,254 
9,254 

23.5* 
13,409 
13,409 

97% 
440 
440 

67% 
1,861 
1,861 

116% 
6,H9 
6,849 

10.0% 
249 
249 



28% 
47379 
47,379 



00% 




28% 
2,837 
2,837 

5.7% 
8» 
830 

10% 
343 

343 

11.0% 
6,290 
6J90 

21% 
95 

95 

5.0% 
1373 
1373 

3.0% 
1,773 
1,773 

00% 

D 




8% 
13,541 
13341 



10.5% 

314 

49 

208% 
20,694 
17,429 

24.0% 
3,522 
1,801 

11.5% 
3,941 
t,S33 

29.0% 

16328 

643 

498% 
2,252 
1,891 

30.0% 

8310 

415 

29.8% 
17,679 
6,162 

38.0% 
945 
24« 



18% 
74,184 
30.4t9 



.; 1 
IPcnDB*' 



0.0% 



1.8% 
1,795 
1,795 

3.3% 
483 
447 

0.8% 
274 
247 

3.5% 
1,971 
1,774 

31% 

140 
I2« 

1.9% 
535 

481 

8.6% 
5,121 
4,609 

50% 
124 
112 



6% 

10,443 
9390 



113% 

338 

93 

128% 
12,730 
11730 

14.9% 
2,191 
1,123 

38% 

1,289 

612 

3.0% 

1,691 

676 

3.0% 
136 
68 

11.0% 
3,0» 
1,455 

69% 

4.092 
409 

30% 
75 
37 



"wmtCHS^SSSm 



MMk-PccG 



10% 
25,600 
17,204 



4 2% 

125 
70 

67% 
6,657 
6,657 

11.2% 

1,640 
1,144 

2.3% 
772 
474 

0.3% 
189 
126 

24% 
106 
71 

11 5% 
3,181 
1369 

4.4% 
2381 

2,064 

1.9% 
4« 

31 



■ ■ 1 r 

watt 



7% 
15,296 
12,208 



00% 



0.2% 
182 
182 

1.0% 
140 
8« 

0.0% 



6.2% 
33«0 
1,780 

1.1% 
51 

26 

02% 
66 
33 

28% 
1,631 

816 

0.0% 








2% 
5,631 
2,924' 



0.0% 



0.0% 
25 
25 

0.4% 
57 

36 

0.0% 



0.1% 
60 
30 

0.5% 
24 
12 

0.1% 
33 
17 

0.7% 
431 
215 

0.0% 





0% 
629 
334 



21% 

61 



83% 
8,296 
4,148 

12.4% 

1,822 

228 

1*7% 
5,724 
2376 

5.1% 
2,91* 



73% 
330 



10.0% 
2,767 



6.1% 
3,617 



7.0% 
174 



» 



4% 

25,708 
6,951 



0.0% 




28% 
2,772 



20% 
299 



5.0% 
1,714 



116% 
6.629 



7.7% 
349 



10.0% 
1770 



20.1% 
11,930 



2 0% 
50 



11 
Vaid 



0% 

26313 





0% 




0.6% 
587 



03% 
46 



08% 
274 



0.8% 
445 



09% 
39 



6.6% 
1,818 



0.8% 
47S 



0.0% 




u 



34.8% 
1,040 



18.8% 
18,773 
18,773 

3.6% 
533 
133 

22X)% 
7340 
3,770 

14% 
812 



24% 

107 



17% 
132 



17% 
1/125 



0,0% 




u 

OUmt 



0% 

3.683 





13% 
30,161 
22,676 



143% 
434 

87 

11.8% 
11,795 
2359 

7.0% 
1,033 

207 

9.2% 

3,149 

630 

43% 

2382 
516 

99% 
449 

90 

58% 

139S 

319 

3.4% 

2,034 

407 

33.1% 
824 
1<6 



TMUt 



3% 

£3,8»4 

4,779 



100.0% 

Z990 

977 

100.0% 
99,717 
79309 

100.0% 

H«tt 

8,101 

100.0% 
34,Z73 
19,738 

100.0% 
57,082 
25,245 

100.0% 
4,518 
2,819 

100.0% 
27.700 
7324 

100.0% 
59,238 
23304 

IOD.0% 
839 



100% 
302,665 
16^065 



CTl 

to 

I* 

"I 

^•^ 

is 






II 



I 



I 



TABLE N-10 

Ettimatcd FotcntUI Divcnion 

Extendrd 3Rl 

for MijoT SIC Gmipi for PccI Region 






1 Primwy 



2 Manuficturing 



4 Tnnsportilion/ 
ConununkaUon/ 
UtiUtia 

5 Tradr VVhola>le 



6 Trade Retail 



7 HiundaL Iraunnct 
& Real Estalt 



8 Servict*: 

Ncm-CommwdiJ 



9 Ssvica: 
ConuTMTCul 



10 Public 

Admlnlttralion 



Toud ICU 
WatlcSlmn 






Composition GtncrctKl (%) 

Ccnsdcd ((onns) 

Polentlal Divsiion (loiuio) 

Compositioii Goisatcd {%) 

Oncnltd (lonns) 

Poteitiil Diversion (tonne) 

Composition CaiBalcd (%l 

OnCTalAl (tonno) 

Potential Divovon ((onn«) 

Composition Gcno-atcd (%} 

Ccn<nl«d (tonna) 

Polmlial Dlvnion (tonnes) 

Composition Goio'ated (%) 

Ccnsatcd CtoiUM*) 

FotBitlil Dlvsiion (lonnc») 

Composition Caiented (K) 
Generated (toiuHa) 
Potential Diversion (tonna) 

Compantian Generated (%) 

Generated (tonnes) 

Potential Diversion (tonnes) 

Composidon Gai9a(ed {%} 

Cenvated (lonncs) 

Potential Divenlon (tonnes) 

CompoaiUon Censated (%) 
Cawratcd (tonnca) 
PotoitiaJ Divovlon (tonnca) 



C«npoaltlah (% total) 
CjSiented (tonnes) 
Potential Diversion (tonna) 



062 



1.78 



1» 



tS7 



1 II 



0.25 



0.90 



Waste Ctt m paai ti e ii 



1 
OCC 



ONf 



0.34 



18.0* 
446 
446 

151* 

2S,544 
25,544 

136% 
6.72i 
6,726 

270% 
13,036 

13,036 

24 8% 

4,466 
4,466 

9 9% 
467 
467 

68% 
2,387 
2,387 

119% 

8,645 
8,645 

TOO* 
5S3 
S53 



15 4% 
62,270 
62,270 



00% 




2.9* 
4,968 
4,968 

54* 
2.690 
2,690 

1.0% 
483 
483 

11.6* 
2,087 
2,087 

2.0* 
96 
% 

SO* 
1.769 
1,769 

3.9% 
2.828 
2.828 

0.0* 
D 




1 



37* 
14.921 
14.921 



98* 

243 

38 

185* 
31,236 
25,435 

28.7* 
14,202 

7.261 

11.5* 
5552 
2582 

27.4* 

4.«34 

199 

49.4* 
2325 
1,953 

30.0* 

10.604 

530 

2S.S* 
20,904 
7,199 

38.0% 
2,101 



4 
Claaa 



227* 
92.101 
45,743 



00% 



2.0* 
3356 
3356 

3.2* 
1563 
1.445 

8* 
386 
348 

3.8* 
686 
617 

3.0% 
141 
127 

20% 
699 
629 

9.5* 
6,875 
6,188 

5.0% 
276 
249 



34* 

13,983 
12,959 



13.1* 

325 
89 

129* 
21,810 
21,810 

14.8% 
7.301 
3.742 

38% 

1,816 

863 

3.1* 
557 
223 

3.2* 
149 

74 

11.0% 
3.887 
1.844 

67* 

4889 

489 

3.0* 
166 
83 



t 
NMa-FciT. 



10.1* 
40.900 
29.217 



7.9% 
197 

no 

6.4% 
10,858 
10,858 

11 1* 

5.467 
3.813 

23% 
1,089 

670 

04% 
68 
46 

2 8% 
130 

87 

11 5% 
4,056 
1.999 

4.2% 
3.052 
2.441 

14* 
76 
51 



T 
HDPC 



6.2% 
24.992 
20,075 



0* 



02% 
401 
401 

10* 
482 
301 

00% 



61% 

1,096 

548 

10* 
48 

24 

0.3% 
89 



2.9% 
2.118 
1.059 

00* 





I 

per 



1.0% 
4.234 
2378 



0.0* 



01* 
128 

128 

0.4* 
184 
115 

0* 




0.1% 
19 

to 

0.5* 
24 
12 

0.1% 
44 

23 

0.7* 
528 
264 

0.0% 





f 

{•IhIIc 



0.2* 
927 
551 



36* 
90 



97* 
16,452 
8,226 

10.9* 

5.404 

675 

167* 
8.063 
3,628 

43* 

773 



75* 
352 



9.9* 
3516 



5.9* 
4323 



7.0* 
387 



ID 



00% 





5.9% 
9,940 



21% 
1.046 



5.0% 
2,414 



113% 

2,036 



75* 
355 



10.0% 
3535 



21.1* 

IS332 



2 0* 
111 



» 

Yud 



97* 
39360 
12530 



8.6* 
34.769 





0.0* 




0.6* 
1,067 



0.3% 
142 



0.8* 
386 



07* 
123 



0.9% 
42 



65* 
2305 



0.6% 
448 



0.0* 




11 



297* 
737 



150* 
ZS347 
25347 

36* 

1.793 

448 

22.0* 
10.622 

5311 

15% 
277 



25* 
116 



1.3* 
443 



0.9% 
660 



00% 





u 

Otka 



1.1* 9.9* 
4518 39,995 
o| 31,106 



17 8* 

440 

88 

10.7* 
18,096 
3,619 

4.9% 

2396 

479 

92* 
4,433 

887 

4.9% 
886 
177 

98* 

461 

92 

5.7% 

2,013 

403 

28* 

2,061 

412 

33.6% 

372 



8.0* 

32.645 

6529 



Talal 



100.0* 

2,477 

771 

100.0* 

129.693 

1000* 
49.401 
27,697 

100.0* 

48.280 
27,806 

100.0* 
18,010 
8373 

100.0* 
4,707 
2,933 

100.0% 
35348 
9.628 

100.0* 
72,662 
29525 

100.0% 
552S 
1,^53 



1000* 
406.616 
23B.279 






ni S. 



II 



s 



I 



TABLE N-11 

Ettimtted Potcnllal Div«nJon 

Extended 3R« 

for Mif or SIC Group! for Htllon Region 

1992 



M*f«tlCft| 



1 IMm«y 



2 Minufactuilng 



4 Tranipoiialion/ 
Cominiinkallon/ 
UdUlin 

5 Tndc Whokailc 



6 Trade RHill 



7 Hnancuil, Iniunna 
k R«l Eslil* 



B StTYiat: 

Noiv-ComBwrd*] 



9 Ssvktt: 
Coinins<daJ 



10 PubUc 

AdintnlilT«tlan 



Compodbon Comtcd (%) 

Cnsdcd (tonno) 

Potffltinl DivHilon (loniio) 

Composition Gcncriitcd (%) 

Onowtcd (tonm) 

Polcnliml Divcnion (loiwa) 

CampoaiUon Ccncnlol (%) 

Generated (tonna) 

Poloidal Dtvcnion (lonna) 

CompodUon Gaaated (%) 

G«n<r«led (tonna) 

Polntiil Div«nlon (tonna) 

Composition GsiCTilcd 1%} 

Generated (lonnca) 

PoIenUii Divtnian (lonnca) 

Composibon Cacrated (%) 
Ccneraied (lonnea) 
Totentlal Dlvcnlon <tofln«) 

Compoaibon Ccnented (%) 

Generated (tonnea) 

Polenlia] ENvenlon (lonne*) 

Compoalbon Ceno'aled (%) 

Generated (lonnea) 

PotcntI*) [Tiverrion (tonnea) 

Compoaibon Censated («) 
Generated (tonna) 
Potential DIveralan (tonna) 



TolaJICAl 
WaiteStnam 



vmomtm^ 



Compoaibon 1% total) 
GeiwFBted (tonna) 
Potential Dlvoalon (tonna) 



033 



0.9« 



0.53 



0.S2 



076 



012 



0« 



O.Sg 



0.17 



I 

dec 



70.0% 
223 
223 

130% 
4,131 
4,131 

13.8* 
402 
487 

27.0% 
1,7» 
1,J» 

24.4% 
4,127 
4,127 

97% 

107 
107 

6.7% 
63S 
«35 

118% 
2,078 
2,0^ 

100% 
116 
116 



1 



28% 
13,689 
13,689 



0.0% 




3,3% 
1,038 
1.038 

5.2% 
180 

im 

1.0% 
66 
66 

116% 
1.960 
1,960 

2.0% 
22 
22 

49% 
468 
468 

28% 
4S1 
451 

0.0% 





9% 
4.185 
4,185 



9 



9.1% 

102 

16 

16.5% 
5,251 
4,126 

26.7% 
933 

477 

11.5% 
762 
354 

28.0% 

4,743 

193 

503% 
555 

466 

30.0% 

2,846 

142 

265% 
4J02 

1,223 

38.0% 
440 
114 



15% 
19,934 
7,111 



daaa 



0.0% 



22% 
7D8 

7D8 

3.0% 
105 
97 

0.8% 
53 
48 

3.8% 
639 

575 

32% 

35 
31 

1.9% 
180 

162 

10.0% 
1,620 
1.458 

50% 
58 

52 



6% 
3J99 
3,133 



145% 
163 
45 

157% 
i98D 
4,980 

143% 
499 

256 

38% 
2SS 
121 

2.9% 
494 

198 

28% 
3) 
16 

11.1% 

1,050 

500 

5.8% 

944 

94 

30% 
35 
17 



W«ato C^p^ri'aWM 



Ne»I>sE 



69% 
77 
43 

7.4% 
2360 
2J60 

10.6% 
370 
258 

23% 
153 
94 

04% 
60 
41 

2 2% 
24 
16 

11.5% 

1.090 
538 

32% 
524 

419 

16% 
1 
12 



T 
HDK 



13% 
8,451 
6,227 



8% 

4,67S| 
3,780 



00% 



0.2% 
50 
SO 

8% 
28 
18 

0.0% 



6.1% 

1.027 

513 

1.1% 
13 
6 

0.2% 
22 
11 

2.7% 
440 
220 

00% 








2% 

1380 

8191 



0.0% 




0.0% 
10 
10 

04% 
13 
8 

0.0% 




01% 
14 

7 

0.6% 
6 
3 

0.1% 
11 

6 

0.7% 
111 
56 

00% 





0% 
166 
90 



12% 
14 



8.7% 
2,758 
U79 

11.9% 

415 
52 

16.7% 

1,106 

498 

4.6% 
786 



7.8% 
86 



10.0% 
950 



53% 
885 



70% 
81 



» 



4% 

7,081 
1,929 



0.0% 




34% 
1,074 



17% 
61 



50% 
331 



118% 
2,003 



7.6% 
84 



10.0% 
949 



240% 
3,890 



2.0% 
23 






0% 

8,41 5| 





00% 




0.8% 
249 



0.3% 
10 



8% 
53 



0.7% 
124 



08% 
8 



66% 
625 



09% 
140 



0.0% 




.:,U-.- 

\ilmot 



0% 
UIO 





31.9% 

357 



164% 
5J02 

5,202 

39% 
137 
34 

220% 

1,457 

729 

1.4% 
229 



2.1% 
24 



\2% 
110 



1.8% 
291 



0.0% 




CMcr 



163% 
184 
37 

12.4% 

3,922 

784 

7,4% 

260 

52 



12% 

7J07 
S,96S 



600 
120 

43% 
728 
146 

9.8% 

108 

22 

5.8% 
55D 
110 

33% 
538 

108 

33.4% 

387 

77 



3% 
7,276 
1,455 



^Md 



100.0% 

1,120 

364 

100.0% 
31,735 
24,769 

1000% 
3,492 
1,913 



9.1% 100.0% 



6,625 
3,818 

100.0% 
16u9S6 
7,759 

100.0% 
1,103 

690 

100.0% 
9,4B6 

2372 

1000% 
16.214 

6107 

100.0% 

1,158 

389 



100% 
87,868 









E. 

I 



I 



* 
a 



TABLE N-U 

EatlDittcd Potential Dlvenion 

Under Eitaiiled 3Ri System 

for Mi|or SIC Cnnipi for CTA 

1991 






mtttton 


:;,■■:/■■ '■■^:\';-iAf.\\\: 


1 

occ 


1 


i 


• 


S 


8 7 8 

Na»tar HDPE fST 


« 

rtMdc 


18 

rood 


11 


tt 

Wood 


U 

Olfeet 


TM*I 


I PrimKy 


Compnltion Ccncralcd («) 

Ccninlcd (loniw) 

PotoiUal Divcralon (laiina> 


IB.tl% 

2,5*0 


000% 





931% 
1J44 

208 


0.00% 




1422% 

1010 

553 


7.60% 

1,074 

602 


000% 




000% 




236% 
333 




000% 




0.00% 





30.25% 
4,376 




1796% 

2339 

508 


1000% 
K136 
4,431 


2 Muiiif*cturlng 


Cooipoiltton CciiCTttcd (%) 

Cowntcd (toniM) 

Poloitlal DIvtnlon (tonncil 


1395% 
W,747 
»,747 


2.93% 
20,936 

20,936 


20.60% 
147774 
119,705 


1.92% 
13,714 
13,714 


1136% 
8X640 
82,640 


5.89% 
42,084 
42,084 


025% 
1.780 
1.780 


0.05% 
378 
378 


909% 
65,001 
32301 


4.61% 

32,970 




064% 
4,600 




15.86% 
1 13328 
113328 


12.64% 
90331 
18,066 


100.0% 
7K7W 
544,879 


CommunlaUon/ 
Ulitlba 


Compaibon GnurOcd <«) 

C«Mr*tcd (toniwt) 

rotentiiJ Ovoslon (tonnctl 


13 44% 

20^* 


5.29% 

«,C»7 
8,097 


2778% 
42,527 
21,742 


305% 
4,670 
4J20 


1375% 

21,055 
10,791 


1011% 
15,486 
10,802 


1 11% 
1,699 

1,062 


035% 
531 
332 


11.49% 

17593 

2,199 


152% 
3.866 




028% 

424 




3*7% 
5,618 
1,404 


7.16% 
10,969 

2,194 


100.0% 
153,110 
83517 


5 Trade WholiuJc 


Conipatitkin Ccnsilcd (%} 

CsioalKl (tonrwi) 

Potential Divmlon (toniua) 


2700% 
47,976 
47,976 


100% 
1,777 
1.777 


11J0% 
20,434 
9,502 


0.80% 
1.423 

1,279 


3.67% 
6315 
3094 


2.17% 
3,851 
2J68 


000% 




000% 





16 70% 
29,674 
13353 


500% 
8,884 




080% 
1,422 




2200% 
39,091 

19346 


937% 
16.643 
3329 


100.0% 
177,688 
102.Z24 


« TridrRitall 


Compnltton CcnCTaltd (%) 

Cenaratcd (tonm) 

Potential DIvamlofi (tonn**) 


24.46% 
79,4» 
79,459 


1135% 
36,«64 
36,864 


28.49% 
92515 

3,742 


368% 
11,956 

10,761 


2,70% 
8,764 
3,506 


0.35% 

1,137 

762 


5.86% 
19,052 
9326 


010% 

320 
160 


494% 

16,046 



11.94% 

38,775 



074% 
2,414 




1.41% 
43«9 




399% 

12,960 
2392 


100.0% 
321851 
147,371 


7 Finandil. liuurino 
k R«l Ectal* 


Cnmpoeitwn C«wa«*d <%) 

CefuraKd (tonm) 

PolBitial Dlv.rtion (tonna) 


9J«% 
tS2S 
4,525 


204% 
982 
982 


5142% 
24,W6 
20437 


339% 
1>J3 

1,470 


264% 

1,276 

638 


223% 

721 


131% 
630 
315 


064% 
310 
155 


7.94% 

3,828 




770% 

3,716 




0.65% 

312 




179% 
863 

D 


888% 

4J84 

857 


1000% 
48^241 
30,500 


i SoVtcK 


Compoattlan Generated (%> 

Coitfalcd (lonne*) 

PoWntlat DIvsmlan (tonnea) 


6.61% 
1B,5«5 
IB.56S 


4 81% 
13,516 
13,516 


3000% 
IHJS3 
4.214 


1.77% 
4.978 
4,480 


11.19% 
31,436 
15,080 


1157% 
32JS8 
15,994 


0.20% 
570 
285 


010% 
285 
142 


1013% 

28.458 



1000% 

28,094 



669% 

18,796 




1.01% 

1848 




596% 
16,757 
3351 


100.0% 

280,943 

75,628 


9 Sovlcn. 
ComiiMrdtl 


CompoalUon CenCTaied («) 

Cenaaled (tonno) 

Pototial Ovnion (tonus) 


11.91% 
53,435 
5],435 


3J1% 
14,S65 
14,865 


28.87% 
129324 
453M 


9.23% 
41,424 
37JBI 


6.72% 

30,161 

31016 


398% 
17,856 
14.2*5 


180% 
12570 
6,285 


077% 
3.231 
1.615 


594% 
26,653 




21.14% 
94,873 




0.73% 
3,265 




1.39% 

6J44 




3.25% 
2,916 


100 0% 
4481683 
179,206 


10 PubUc 

Admlnktnbon 


CanpodUon C««(cd (%) 
Polentla] Dlvcnlan (tonnca) 


1000% 
3,877 
3,«77 


000% 




38.00% 
14,734 
3,831 


5.00% 
1.939 

1,74S 


3.00% 

1,163 

582 


156% 
407 
406 


0.00% 





0.00% 




700% 

2,714 




2.00% 

775 



000% 




0.00% 




3344% 

12,9164 
2J93 


too.o« 

381774 
13094 


Tool ICU 

W»1«Stnwn 


Compoaltiem 1% (OUU 
CsMTatcd ((anneal 
Potential DIvailon (lonneal 


15% 
330,721 
330,711 


4% 

97,036 
97,036 


25% 
557,463 
229 J68 


4% 

81,735 

75,050 


8% 
185,018 
119,898 


5% 
115329 
88,024 


2% 
36,301 
19,253 


0% 
5.053 
2.782 


9% 
190302 
48.053 


10% 

211,954 




1% 

31,233 




8% 
176,838 
134 J78 


8% 

isixno 

36,406 


100% 
2,201,212 
1,180,870 



C3 

u 

p> 5 



H 



r 



•ea 



TABLE N-13 

Etlimatcd Divenion 

Under Expinded 3Rt Sytlem 

for MijorSIC Graupi for CTA 

1992 



..^IlilwlOM::: 




1 


3 
ONF 


t 




S 


§ 7 » 

rtoMwr taan nrr 


« 


1« 

taod 


Y«d 


Waod 


aim 


TBtat 


1 Prlitiiry 


Compo»ition G«iie»ted (%) 

Coicnlcd Oonno) 

Potential Divenion (Icnuio) 


1811* 
2,560 


0.00% 




951% 
1J44 

1.2)0 


000% 




1422% 
2,010 
2,010 


760% 
1,074 
1,074 


000% 




00% 




2 36% 
333 
250 


000% 




000% 




30.25% 
4,276 
4,276 


)79** 

23» 

508 


100.0% 
14,13* 

11,888 


2 MuiufKturing 


Compwibon Ccncrated (%) 

Gcnaaled (lonn«) 

Potential Divenion (tonna) 


139511 

9»,747 

99,717 


2.93* 
20,93* 
20,93* 


20 60% 
147.27* 
132549 


192* 
13,714 
13,714 


1136% 
8t640 

BZ640 


589* 
42,084 
42.084 


25% 
1,780 

1,780 


05% 
378 
378 


909* 
65,001 
32301 


4 61% 

32,970 


064% 
4,600 


1585% 
113328 

113328 


12.64* 
90331 
18.066 


1000% 
7I4.7W 

557,713 


4 Truuportition/ 
Communicadon/ 
Utilitia 


Composition Generated (%) 

Cenaated (tonnei) 

Potential Divoilon (tonnes) 


1344% 
20,57* 
2057* 


5 29% 
8,097 
8,097 


27 78* 
42327 
38.274 


305% 
4,670 
4,670 


13 75* 

21,055 
21,055 


10 11% 
1S,4M 
15,48* 


1 11% 
1,W9 
1.699 


35% 
531 
S31 


1149* 
17393 
12,095 


ZS2% 
3,8«« 


28% 
424 


367% 
5,618 

5.618 


7 16% 
10,969 

2.194 


100 0% 
IU,110 
130,294 


5 THdr Wholtulc 


Composition Censaled 1%) 

Generated (bmncil 

Potential Divoilon (loitneil 


27 W» 
47,97* 

47,976 


100% 
1,777 
1,777 


11.50* 
20,434 
18,391 


0.80% 
1,422 
1,422 


3.67* 
WIS 
6315 


2.17% 
3451 
3,851 


0.00% 




00% 




1*.7I>% 
29,674 
22JS5 


5.00% 
8384 


080% 
1,422 


2100% 
39,091 
39,091 


937% 
16,643 
3329 


100.0% 
177,<«B 

mu6 


6 Tradr: Retail 


Compasltkm Censsted (%) 

GBio-alcd (lonns) 

Potential Divssion (tonnes) 


244«» 
79,459 
79,459 


1135% 
36,8«4 
36.B«4 


2849% 
92335 
83.281 


368% 
11,956 
11,956 


2.70% 
8,7*4 
8,764 


0.35% 
1,137 
1,137 


5 86* 
19,052 
19.052 


10* 
320 
320 


4.94% 
t6M6 

12,035 


1194% 

38,775 


0.74% 
2,414 


1.41% 
43*9 
4369 


399* 
12,960 
2392 


1000% 
32<K1 

2*0,029 


7 Fiiundal Iniurann 
k fttmi EUtit 


Conrposition Generated (%) 

Generated (tonnes) 

rolenbal Divenion (tonnes) 


938% 

4,525 


204* 
982 
982 


5142% 
24306 
22,325 


339% 
1,633 
t,*33 


2*4* 
1,276 
1,276 


123* 
1,07* 

1.076 


1 31% 
630 
630 


064% 
310 
310 


794% 
3,828 
2,871 


770% 
3,716 


0^* 
312 


179% 
863 
863 


8.88% 
4,284 

BS7 


100 0% 
48,241 

37,349 


8 Sovicw- 

Non-Coinin«iti«l 


Composition C*n«-ated (%l 

(SoicralKl (tonnes) 

Polmllal DivBSion (tonnes) 


6 61% 
18,565 
18J65 


4 81% 
13J14 
13,516 


30 00% 
84,283 
71,640 


1-77% 
4,978 
4,978 


11.19% 
31,435 
31,435 


1152% 
32458 
32J58 


020* 
57D 
570 


10% 

285 
285 


1013% 
28,458 
21344 


10 00% 
28,094 


669% 

18,796 


101% 
2,848 
2,848 


59*% 
16.757 
3351 


100.0% 
280,943 
200.899 


9 Scnion: 
Comnwrdal 


Composition Generated (%) 

OnerstMl (tonnes) 

rolciitial Divsilon (tonnes) 


1191* 
53.435 
53,435 


3.31% 
14.865 
14,865 


2887% 
129324 
116372 


923* 
41,424 
41,424 


672% 
30,161 
30,161 


398% 
17.S56 
17,856 


2 80% 
12370 
1237D 


72* 
3,231 
3,231 


594% 
26,653 
19,990 


21.14% 
94,873 


0.73% 
3,2*5 


139% 
«J44 

6ja 


3.25% 

143Q 

2,916 


1000% 
44A683 
319,263 


ID PuUlc 

Admlniatntion 


Composition (3enoated (») 
CvAstcd (lonns) 
PotsitUl Divoilon (lonnes) 


1000* 
3,«77 
3,877 


000% 




38.00% 
14,734 
13,261 


5 00% 
1,939 
1,999 


300% 
1,163 
1,163 


156% 

607 
607 


00% 




00% 




700% 
2.714 
Z036 


100% 
775 


00% 



000% 




33 U% 

12^*4 
2393 


1000% 
3&774 
25,475 


TotdlCU 

WmIc Strom 


Composition (% total) 
Ccnsatcd (tonnes) 
PoloiHal Divenion (ionnes) 


15% 
330,721 
330,721 


4% 

97,036 
97,03* 


25% 
557,4*3 
497302 


4% 

81,735 
81,735 


8% 
185,018 
18S,018 


5% 
115329 
115329 


2% 
36401 
3*301 


D* 
5,053 
5,053 


9% 
190402 
12SJ77 


10* 

211,954 




1% 

3133 



8% 
I76J38 

17*33< 


8% 
18Z030 
36,406 


100% 
2J01.212 
1,t»73l6 



S3. £■ 

rl 

■I 



TABLE N-14 

Eflimltrd Divenion 

Under Expanded 3R> With Otginio Sylem 

for Major SIC Cnnipa for CTA 

1992 































































' ' . ;l|NMjCftl" 




1 


ONT 


J 


« 
CtaM 


S 


* 




■ 
PET 


« 




Yarf 


n 

Wood 


u 


tMal 


1 Prlnuiy 


CoirpoalUon Ceno-ated (%) 

Coutalcd (lonno) 

PolenUal Divmion (lonin»> 


1811% 

isea 

2,560 


000% 




931% 
1344 

1,210 


00% 





14.22% 
^010 

^olo 


7.60% 
1,074 

1,074 


000% 





000% 




236% 
3.33 
250 


000% 




00% 





30 25% 
4,276 
4,276 


1796% 

2339 

508 


100 0% 
14136 
11,888 


2 Mwiufacturing 


CompoaiUon GeiHraled (%) 
Coioattd (bmnca) 


13.95% 

99,747 


2.93% 
20,936 


20.60% 
147,176 


1.92% 
13,714 


1136% 
St640 


5.89% 
42/984 


025% 
1,780 


05% 
378 


909% 
65,001 


461% 
32,970 


0.64% 
4,600 


15 86% 
113328 


1264% 
90331 


100.0% 
71*7>* 




Potential Diveilon Itontim) 


99,747 


20,936 


132349 


13,714 


8^64o 


42,084 


1,780 


378 


32301 


32,970 


4,600 


113328 


18,066 


9«vSl 


4 TmiMportaaon/ 
CominunlcilJon/ 

UUUtin 


Compoaitlon Censatcd (%) 

Camttd (lonnca) 

Polcntial Diventon (Imuia) 


13 44% 

2DJ76 
2037S 


5.29% 
8,097 
8.097 


27.78% 
42327 
38,27< 


305% 
4,670 
4,670 


13.75% 
21.0S5 
21,055 


10 11% 
15,486 
15.486 


111% 
1,699 
1.699 


035% 
531 
531 


1149% 
17393 
12.095 


2.52% 
3366 
3,866 


28% 
424 
424 


367% 

5,618 
5,618 


716% 

10,90 
2,194 


100.0% 
151110 
134384 


S Trade Wholcul* 


CompoalboB Generated <») 
CotCTaled (tmna) 


27.00% 
47,97* 


100% 
1,777 


1130% 
20.434 


080% 
1.422 


367% 
6315 


117% 
3,851 


000% 



0.00% 



167t% 
29,674 


500% 
8,884 


080% 
1.422 


2200% 
»,091 


937% 
16,643 


100.0% 
177,688 




Potential Dlwraion (tonnea) 


47,97* 


1,777 


18J91 


1,422 


6315 


3,8Sl 








22,255 


8384 


1,422 


39,091 


3329 


154.911 


« Trade: R»U11 


Compoaitlon CcTMrated (%) 
Cewrated (tonnca) 


244«% 
J9,4» 


1135% 
36364 


2849% 
92335 


368% 
11,956 


270% 
8,764 


035% 
1.137 


586% 
19,052 


010% 
320 


491% 

16,046 


1194% 

38,775 


0.74% 
2.414 


141% 
4369 


399% 
12.9(0 


1000% 
32«,a61 




Potential Divcialon (lonnea) 


79,4S9 


36,864 


SJ.281 


ll,9S« 


8,764 


1,137 


19,052 


320 


12,035 


34,898 


2,172 


4369 


2392 


297,0» 


7 Finandal, liuurana 
& Real E*lale 


Compoaitlon C*n«alcd (%) 

Cneraled (tonnea) 

PotentiaJ Divenion (tonna) 


9J8« 

4jas 

4,525 


2 04% 
982 
982 


51.42% 
24306 
22325 


339% 
1,633 
1,633 


264K 
1,176 
1,276 


223% 

1,076 
1,076 


131% 
630 
630 


064% 
310 
310 


7.94% 
3,828 
2,871 


7.7D% 
3,716 
3,716 


065% 
312 
312 


1»% 
863 

863 


8.88% 

4,284 

857 


1000% 
48,241 
41,376 


S SsvtccK 

Non-Commsdal 


Compositlan Ceiwaled (%) 

Csisated (tontwa) 

Potential Divsilon (loiuiet) 


6 61% 
18J65 
18,565 


4 81% 
13316 
13316 


3000% 
84,2S3 

71,640 


177% 
4,978 

4,978 


11.19% 
31,436 
31,435 


11.52% 
32358 
32358 


20% 
S70 
570 


010% 
285 
285 


10.13% 
78,458 
21344 


10.00% 
28.094 
28,094 


669% 
18,396 

18,796 


1.01% 
2348 
2348 


5.96% 
1*,7S7 
3351 


100.0% 
280,943 
247,780 


9 Sovlcea: 


CompoaiUon Generated (%) 
Ccnsatad (lonnca) 


n.91% 
S3,43S 


3J1% 
14365 


28.87% 
129324 


9:23% 
41/424 


672% 
30,161 


398% 
17356 


280% 
12370 


071% 
3J3t 


5.94% 
26,453 


21.14% 
94373 


0.73% 
3J65 


1.39% 
6J44 


325% 
14382 


100.0% 
44t,t83 




Potential Diveraloit (tonnea) 


S3,435 


14,865 


116372 


41.424 


30,161 


17356 


12370 


3,231 


19,990 


94373 


3J6S 


6J44 


2,916 


417,402 


10 Public 

AdmlmatiaUon 


Compo^bon Coisated (%) 
PotaiUal Divenion (tonna) 


10.00% 
3,»77 
3,S77 


00% 





38.00% 
14,734 
13,261 


5.00% 
1,9» 
1,939 


3.00% 
1,163 
1,1(3 


156% 
607 
607 


000% 




000% 




700% 
2,714 
2,036 


2.00% 
775 
77S 


000% 




0.00% 




33.41% 
12.964 


1000% 
311774 
2(^251 


Total ICU 

WaateStnun 


Compodtlon (% total) 
Generated (tonnea) 
PotcnUal Divenion (tonnea) 


15% 

330,711 
330,731 


4% 

97,03* 
97,036 


25% 
S57,4«3 
497302 


4% 

81,735 
81,735 


8% 
185,018 
185,018 


5% 

115329 
115329 


2% 
36J0I 
36301 


0% 
5,053 
5,053 


9% 
190302 
125377 


10% 
211,954 
208,077 


1% 

31,233 
30,991 


8% 

176338 
176338 


8% 

182,030 

36,406 


100% 
1301,112 
1,9263m 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table N-15 

Esanuted IC&I Waste Genetation and Reduction 

fot Dniltam Region 

1996-2015 



Ymt 


EatUMate^-' 
KM Warn 

(tauM^ 




falCMyiaH:: 

flll—Hl 


ICUTMMa 

CiiiiiiiUaa^MK 

ftiaaial 


%ttmdlkmlm 

gwiialia«i«a«a 


T«ltlla4«Mtat 
btCMftait 

(tamw) 




1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
20O0 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 


219,429 


173,262 


1,787 


3,465 


463 


5,714 


213,716 


227,692 


179,786 


2317 


4,495 


599 


7,411 


220381 


236^67 


186 J57 


2386 


5397 


746 


9,228 


227339 


245,1641 193^1 34^ 


6.775 


903 


11,171 


1 =^=^ 

233,992 


254J97I 200,872 4 143 


8.035 


1.071! 13.248 


241 149 


263,976i 208,436 


4336 


9,380 


1,2501 15.465 


248311 


273,917i 216J85 

1 ' 


5383 


10314 


1,441 


18.138 


255,779 


284,232 


224,429 


7.002 


12344 


1,645 


20.990 


263341 


294,936 


232382 


8.197 


13,973 


1362 


24,032 


270,904 


3064)42 


241 AS! 


9,473 


' 

15,707 


2,093 


27,273 


278,769 


317,568 


250,751 


10332 


173S3 


2339 


30,724 


286344 


329,526 


260,194 


12,281 


19315 


2,600 


34396 


295,130 


341,935 


269,992 


13324 


21399 


2378! 38301 


303,634 


354311 


280,159 


15.465 


23314 


3.1731 42,451 


312360 


368.173 


290,710 


17,210 


26,164 


3,486l 46360 


321314 


382,037 


301,666 


19,065 


28A57 


3318 i 51340 


330 497 


396,424 


313,016 


21.035 


31302 


4,170i 56307 


339,917 


411 352 


324303 


23,126 


34,104 


4344 


61,774 


349378 


426,843 


337,036 


25345 


37,074 


4,939 


67358 


359,485 


442,916 


349,727 


27,698 


40219 


5358 


73375 


369341 


Total 


6477,638 


5,035,783 


235398 


370384 


49374 


6H3S5 


S,7J1.7«8 



Notet 



^^Tc^T^f^'t^ "T^ *^ ™'"°^~' <'^'**"B ^° »"*' Aggregate d.t. on ^.pioymJTfo, 
5 Red«tK», u, CtD w,«, g,„«tt* d^ .««ly ,0 be«„ w,«e ™.g„«„. w„ «u„^ ,0 b*VmaLen Jof 025* pe, ye.r. 



May 1994 



PageN-l6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appen^x 



TabU N-16 

Estinuted ICbl Wutc Generation utd Reduction 

for Metro Toronto 

1996-2015 



Year 


ICMWMit 


■riiiiiiiiii[i:ieiMf 

tMCttO 


telCMMMt* 


IlltKlllMto 

ICUWMt 

CwiMitti^f «a 


tHhirttftii 


<ln«iii> 


itiiiinntiiii 


1»6 
1997 
1998 
1999 

2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 


ij6i,aji 


1,291,753 


15.191 


2S,&3S 


2,693 


43719 


1317312 


1^72,068 


1^00,887 


19,123 


32322 


3390 


55,035 


1317,033 


1,583,183 


1,310,064 


23,110 


39303 


4,096 


66309 


1316^674 


13MJ75 


U19J4S 


27,152 


46,177 


4313 


78,142 


131633 


1,605,648 


1J28.674 


31750 


53,147 


5339 


89,937 


1315,711 


1.617,000 


1338,068 


35,405 


60,213 


6,276 


101394 


1315,106 


1,630,761 


1349.455 


42386 


67,473 


7,033 


117391 


1313370 
1311,494 


1,644,639 


1360,938 


50,491 


74352 


7302 


133.144 


1,658,635 


1371520 


fA-yn 


82351 


8383 


149,157 


1309,478 


1,67X750 


1384,201 


66,082 


89,973 


9378 


165.433 


1307318 


1.686,985 


1395,980 


74,071 


97,719 


10,185 


181,975 


1305,011 


1,701J41 


1,407,860 


82.191 


105390 


11,006 


199,786 


1302335 


1,715,821 


1,419,842 


90,4W 


U3387 


11339 


215370 


1,499,950 


1,730,422 


1,431,924 


98,831 


121,714 


12,686 


233,231 


1,497,191 


1,745,148 


1,444,110 


107355 


129,970 


13347 


■ 
250372 


1,494,276 


1,760,000 


1,456,400 


116,017 


1 

138358 


14,421 


268,796 


1,491,204 


1,770,702 


1,465,256 


124317 


146326 


15,272 


I 

286315 


1,484367 


1,781,470 


1,474,166 


133,117 


154,787 


16,133 


304,038 


1,477,432 


1,792JC3 


1,483,130 


141317 


163,144 


17,004 


321,966 


1,470337 


1,803,201 


1,492,149 


150,618 


171397 


17386 


340,100 


1,463,101 


Totml 


33,U7,4a3 


27,816,742 


1,4«7,8W 


1,91 1»7 


1993U 


3,602310 


30,025.173 



Note* 

1. ICM waste gencntlan ntes In ocplumn 1 are baaed on overall unit geieratwn rate for 1987 - 1992 (Talrfe 11.6 in Service Techniad 
Appendix) mulUpUed by projeclo i onployinaiL 

2. Estimated CtD waate saieratlon was baaed on 1990 eadsutcs of C4D waste as a percentage <A total waste 
presented in Table 1 1 .7 of the Service Technical Appendix. 

3. Estimate of reduction in lUI waste generalkxi due lo change In cni;doyi>ient profile was based on an esUmated change in ovetall 
unit generahan tale muUpUed by the number of employees (excluding CAD ie<lor). Ag^egaled data on employment for 

eadi sector in GTA (Sodal Environmoit Technical Appoidix) were used to determine the change in employment and the change in ovsa 
unit genenllon rale far each region, 

4. Reduction tn ICId waste generation due to innovaticn tvas assumed to be In incnmoits of 0.5* per ytu until y«r 2015. 

5. Reduction in CfcD waste gencratlan due mostly to better waste management was assumed to be in Inocmenta of 0i5% per year. 



May 1994 



PageN-17 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



TabI* N-17 

Estuiutcd IC&I Wartc Genention and Reduction 

for York Region 

1996-2015 



Ymt 


fymmm 


ntinmicfci 

t«wCM> 

ttmmmi 


taKMTWMlr 


ICMWMlt 


IiJTttiiite 


TtitltdMBltoB 


FmiiiiiiKifti 


1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 

2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 


*79M6 


353,979 


2320 


7,080 


1,257 


10357 


468789 


498X109 


367 J30 


3J71 


9,188 


1,631 


14,090 


483,918 


517^6 


381,602 


4.076 


11,448 


2,032 


17356 


499320 


536,873 


396212 


4,937 


13367 


2,462 


2U66 


515307 


557,427 


411381 


5,858 


16,455 


2,921 


25,234 


532,193 


5711,768 

1 


427,131 

1 — 


6,843 


19^21 


1 

3,412 


29,475 


549.293 


600.926 

1 


443,484 


9304 


2Z174 


3,936 


35*14 


S6S312 


623,933 


460.463 


123S9 


25325 


4,495 


42.180 


581.754 


647 J22 


478,092 


15,418 


28,686 


5,092 


' 

49,196 


SMjOt 


672^4 


496397 


18.694 


32,266 


5,727 


56,687 


615,937 


698376 


515,401 


22,196 


36,078 


6,404 


64,681 


633395 


725,113 


535,133 


25,943 


40,135 


7,124 


73,203 


t ^^ 

1 651,911 


752^5 


555^1 


29,942 


44,450 


7390 


S2J82 


670392 


781,698 


576,893 


34,210 


49.036 


8,704 


91,950 


689748 


811,627 


598,980 


38,760 


53.908 


9369 


102.237 


1 709389 


842,700 


621,913 


43,609 


59,082 


10.487 


113,178 


1 729322 


856,709 


632.252 


47,754 


. 63,225 


11,223 


122,202 


i — ^ ■ 

734307 


870,951 


642,762 


52,025 


67,490 


11,980 


131,495 


739,456 


88S,430 


653,447 


56,249 


71379 


12JS9 


140387 


744343 


900,150 


664311 


60398 


76396 


13361 


150355 


749393 


Total 


13,«3i,732 


10J12.984 


494,768 


747JW 


131,667 


1374JB4 


tZ,4Ca,9« 



Nolw 

1. ICtl watte ^mlian ntoa in cdumn 1 arebwd pn overaU unit gcnCTiHon nle for 1987 - 1992 CTMt 11 .6 in Service Techniai 
Appendix) mulUplted by projected eoiploymaiL 

2. EiMi™»edCM>wi*egwer«lk»Y««lM«»lor 1990 estiiMtesot CAD w«te«.pereeiit«Mo*totilv«Me 
presented In Table 1 1 7 of the Service Technical Appendix. 

3 Ertiiute<rfreduetfc»inlCfcIwMtegen«iti<»duelodimgeineinpteyii^tprofiJew«sbtaedonanestiin»l^ 

umt genenlian rale multtphed by the number ot employea (exdudlng CfcD sector), AggtegitBl data on empioyment for 

eieh sector In CTA (Sod.1 Envirwunent Tedmk»i Appwdix) were used to determine the change in empteyrnent 
unit generallan nte far each regicn. 

4. Reduction In ICU waste generation due to innovation was assumed to be in Incremoila of 5% per year untU y«r 2015. 

5. Reduction bi C*D waste generation due mostly to better waste management was aaaumed to be in incnments of 025% per year. 



May 1994 



Page N-18 



Ministry erf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table N-}8 

Estinuted IC&I Waate Genention and Reduction 

for Peel Region 

1996-2015 



y«af 


ICUWiHia 

IHiaiwr 


IMMlMf-ICUr: 
lataCttD 


OMMart 


miiaiiliBJB . 

-:--icMn«iM(t:-.-' 


JRedwtlaate- 
CMkWaMi 

pmintkm4mt» 

(tonuat 


Tmitriiirilii 
iKlCfttHtaMa 

(tauaa^ 


rmiii iiinn 


1996 
1997 

1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
200* 
20O5 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 


612752 


451 J98 


3,414 


9,032 


1,612 


14,058 


59e,6»5 


629,421 


463,863 


4384 


11J97 


2,069 


1 
18,0501 


611371 


646,544 


476J03 


5,404 


147951 


2J51 


77 7« 


624795 


664,133 


489.466 


6,476 


17,131 


3,057 


26,664 


637,469 


682,199 


502,781 


7,602 


20,111 


3388 


31302 


650,897 


700757 


516,458 


8.7B0 


23741 


4,147 


36,167 


664390 


719J19 


530 J07 


10,923 


26,525 


4,733 


42,181 


677A3B 


739,401 


544,939 


13.1SZ 


29,972 


5348 


48301 


690,900 


759J16 


559,763 


ISJtS 


33J86 


5,993 


55,123 


704393 


780,177 


574,990 


18,032 


37374 


6,669 


62JJ75 


718,102 


801,400 


590,632 


20,643 


41344 


7377 


69364 


732JB7 


823,202 


606,700 


23,382 


45,502 


8,119 


77,004 


746,198 


845,595 


623,204 


26,256 


49356 


aJBV^ 


85,008 


760308 


o6bJ5v^ 


640,158 


29,260 


54,413 


9,709 


93390 


77! 709 


89272B 


657 J72 


32.425 


59,182 


10360 


102.166 


790«a 


916,500 


675.461 


35,732 


64,169 


11.449 


111350 


1 805,150 


926,562 


682,876 


38,576 


68788 


12,184 


119,048 


1 807314 


936,736 


690,375 


41,478 


72,489 


11934 


126,901 


1 809335 


947,021 


697,954 


44.439 


76,775 


13,699 


134,912 


812,108 


957,420 


705,618 


47,460 


81,146 


14,479 


143,085 


81433S 


Total 


1S3«»,«« 


11,6m AM 


433397 


a6jDa9 


l«f,lM 


1,41B,S9< 


14,431387 



Notca 

1. ICUtnMc^isatknnteitnajluDm lire baaed on OTcnU unit gnCTibonnte for 1987 0992rTable 11.6 in Setvke Technical 
Appendix) multlpliad by p ny cte d employinent. 

2. Eshmated CU) waMe gBmilkin wai biMd on 1990 estunates of C&D waMe la ■ percentage of total waste 
prcMnted in Table 11.7 of the Service Teduiical Appendix 

3. Estlmaleof reductlantnlCJtl waMegoieritlan due to change in entpioyment profile was baaed on anestimiled diange in overall 
unit getwratltn tate mulllpiled by the numbs of employees (excluding CiD wctor). A ggi e gat e J data on employinenl for 

eadr Mctor iii GTA (Sodal Environmait Tedintcil Appendix) were used to detennine the change in cmptoymenl and the change in oven 
unit gBtoadon rate for cadi region. 

4. Reduction m ICJd wi*e generalkm due to innovation wis aaumed to be In incronails of 0.5% per year until year 2015. 

5. ReductKai in C&D.wiste generalkm due mostiy to better waste management was assumed to be in increments of 075% per year. 



May 1994 



Page N -19 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table N-W 

Estimated IC&J Waste Diversion 

for Six ICM Sjrstems in Durham Region 

1996-2015 



Year 


Estlmaiid 
NctlOkf 

Gcncriflim 
(1) 








■;■;;. :',:;;;;!;^!; 


OjsIbui 


SsmtakO) 


t'liiiiliJMU 






'■■■■■■■■-:-:i^i-' 


19% 


213,716 


60,451 


71358 


97387 


115383 


129,174 


13137S 


1997 


22031 


62308 


74,065 


100384 


118,927 


133.143 


135530 


1998 


227,039 


64,770 


763371 103370 


122376 


137227! 140,100 


1999 


233,992 


66,187 


7837S 


106345 


126330 


141,430i 144391 


2000 


241,149 


68,211 


81381 


110,113 


130,193 


145,755 148307 


2001 


248311 


70,293 


83357 


113,475 


134,168 


1502051 153350 


2002 
2003 


255,779 


72349 


86,000 


116,793 


138,092 


► — 1 — — 

1543981 157335 


263,241 


74,460 


88309 


120,201 


142,121 


159,108 162,439 


20O4 


270,904 


76,627 


91.086 


123,700 


146;i58 


hr— 

163,7401 167,168 


2005 


278,769 


78352 


93,730 


127,291 


150305 


\ 

168,4941 172321 


2006 




286344 


81,136 


%,445 


130,978 


154,864 


■ T ' 

1 73374 1 177304 


2CX)7 


295,130 


83,480 


99,232 


134,762i 159338 


17S383I 182.117 


20O8 303,634 


85385 


102/)91l 138345 


163,9291 183323 


187365 


20O9 


312360 


88354 


105325 


142329 


168340 


188,797 


192,749 


2010 


32U14 


90,886 


108,035 


146,718 


173,474 


194,209 


19B;Z74 


2011 


330,497 


93,484 


111,123 


150,911 


178,432 


199,759 


203,941 


2012 


339,917 


%,148 


114290 


155,212 


183317 


205,453 


209,754 


2013 


349378 


98381 


117338 159323 


188,733 


211292 


215,715 


2014 


359,485 


101,683 


120369 


164,147 


194,082 


217280 


221329 


2015 


369,641 


104356 


124284 


168,785 


199365 


223,419 


228396 


Total 


5,721,782 


1,618,453 


1,923331 


2312.AW 


33«9,127 


3,458364 


3330,7«4 



(1) RefertoTibleN-15fof dcrivKionofneilC&IwBtegeiMimiion. 

(2) AMuming 60% covinge by 3R* RegulMioM (refer to S«vw TtchmcJ Appendix. Section 12.4 for deiiikd explanation.) 



May 1994 



Page N'20 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



Table N-20 

Estimated IC&I Waste Diversion 

for Six IC&I Systems in Metro Toronto 

1996-2015 



Ye«r 


Estliautted 
NetlOtl 

WtttC 

(1) 


H«lMfag 
Syrtwii 


SyMMiCe) 
eate) 


Ettiinated bifcnion (tonncrt 

mtmi^U* Eip^MSR. ^S?^!?* 
R«SiU«H-M %€p»\Mm« 'j^SSlir 




1996 


1^17,312 


429,1841 510,1651 692,832 819,1801 917,095 


936294 


1997 


1,517,033 


429,1051 510,071! 692,7051 819,0301 916,9271 936122 


1998 


1316,674 


429,0041 509.950i 6923411 8183361 916,7091 935500 


1999 


1316,233 


428,879 


509,8021 692339 


818398 916,4431 935,6281 


2000 


1315,711 


428,731 


509,6271 692,101 


818316 


916,127 


935306 


2001 


1315,106 


4283^ 509,4231 691J25 


817,989 


915,761 


934533 


2002 


1313,370 


428/)69 508,839 


691,032 


817,052 


914,712 


933362 


2003 


1311,494 


427339 508,209 


690,176 


816,039 


913379 


932,704 


2004 


1309,478 


426,968 507331 


689255 


814,951 


912360 


931,460 


2005 


1307,318 


426357 


506,804 


688268 


813,784 


911,054 


930,127 


2006 


1305,011 


425,705 


506,029 


687215 


812339 


909,660 


928,703 


20Q7 


1302355 


425,010 


505,203 


686,094 


811213 


908,176 


927,188 


2008 


1,499,950 


424273 


504327 


684,904 


809307 


906,601 


925381 


2009 


1,497,191 


423,493 


503,400 


683M4 


808317 


904,933 


923378 


2010 


1,494^6 


422,668 


502,420 


682313 


806,743 


903,172 


922,079 


2011 


l,49i;204 


421,799 


501387 


680,911 


805,085 


901315 


920,184 


2012 


1,484,387 


419,871 


499,094 


677,798 


801,404 


897,194 


915,977 


2013 


1,477,432 


417,904 


496,756 


674,622 


797,649 


892,990 


911,685 


2014 


1,470,337 


415,897 


494370 


671382 


793319 


888,702 


907307 


2015 


1,463,101 


413,850 


491,938 


668X)78 


789,912 


884329 


902342 


Total 


30,025.173 


6^92,666 


10,095,345 


13,710,034 


16210262 


18,147339 


18327,760 



(1) 

(2) 



Refer to Table N-16 for derivation of net IC&I waste getunoon. 

Assuming 60* cwvciHge by 3Rs Regnlahons (refer to Service Techniiad Appendix, Section 12.4 for detailed enplanation.) 



May 1994 



Page N-21 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technicai Appendix 



Table N.21 

Estimated IC&I Waste Diversion 

f 01 Six IC&I Systems in York Region 

1996-2015 



Year 


EtttBfttad 

NdtCftT 

Wttie 

(1> 


" 




Eitimcled Divcisi<Bt (tonnct) 


■'■ :■■■■■■ ■■■SL-:--;i:y:::|:;s 
,. .■:::;:;:v'>;v:-:-'-;-:-':-: 

..^ :::-.'.,yy '■■'■■■■ ■\;;.-\m^0iM 


19% 


468,789 


132,601 


157,621 


214,058 


253,094 


283346 


289,278 


1997 


483,918 


136380 


162,708 


220,966 


261262 


292,490 


298614 


1998 


499^20 


141293 


167,953 


228,090 


269,686 


301,920 


308^41 


1999 


515,607 


145344 

— \ 


173362 


235,436 


278371 


311644 318,1681 


2000 


532,193 


150,535 


178,939 


243,009 


287325 


321668 


3^,402 


2001 


549,293 


155372 


184688 


250317 


296357 


332,004 


338,954 


2002 


565,312 


159,903 


1904r/5 


258,132 


305,206 


341666 


348340 


2003 


581,754 


164,554 


195603 


265639 


314,082 


351624 


358,985 


2004 


598,626 


169326i 2012761 273343 


323,191 


361322 


369397 


2005 
2006 


615,937 


174,223 207,096 


28U48 


332337 


372285 


380,079 


633>95 


1792461 21 3,067 i 289357 


342,125 


383,019 


391,037 


2O07 


651,911 


184398i 219,1921 297674 


351,9591 394,028 


402,277 


2008 


670,592 


189683 


225,473 


306204 


1 
362,045 405320 


413305 


2009 


689,748 


195,101 


231,914 


314,951 


372387 416398 


42S626 


2010 


709,389 


200,657 


238318 


323,920 


382,991 


428,770 


437,746 


2011 


729,522 


206351 


245287 


333,113 


393361 


440,939 


450,169 


2012 


734,507 


207,761 


246,963 


335389 


396353 


443,952 


453246 


2013 


739,456 


209,161 


248627 


337,649 


399224 


446,943 


456;299 


2014 


744343 


210600 


250337 


339,972 


401,970 


450,017 


459,438 


2015 


749,595 


212,029 


252,036 


342^79 


404698 


453,071 4623S6 


Total 


12463,90B 


3,S2S318 


4,190,732 


5,691,245 


6,729,127 


7333,US 7jm,l5t 



(1) Refer to Table N-17 for deiivatian of net IC&I wwte genenlwn. 

(2) Aisuming 60% covfra^e by 3Rs Regolatioiu (refer lo Service Technical AppendiJi. Section 1 2.4 for detailed eJtplanalion.) 



May 1994 



Page N -22 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table N-22 

Estimated IC&I Waste Diversion 

for Six IC&I Systems in Feel Region 

1996-2015 



Ye» 


NetlClfel 

WMte'-: . 
tl) 




OmnilHitd 

SjwttaifiD 

{tUi% caphm 


Estiteatnl Diversion <toai&et> 
R^golattanf R«gnlaUan« 'S^SSHT WwleiUoJai 


1996 


596^5 


169346 


201299 


273375 323229 


1 

361363 369,439 


1997 


61i;371 


172,931 205361 


279,163 


1 
330,0731 


369325 377,261 


1998 


624295 


1763871 209,906 


285,0641 337,0501 377337 


385,236 


1999 


637.469 


1803131 214336 


291,080 344,1 62 1 385;2W| 


393366 


2000 


650,897 


184,112 


218351 


297211 


351,412 


393,416 


401352 


2001 


664390 


187,985 


223,455 


303,464 


358305 


401392 


410,101 


2002 


677,638 


191,675 


227,842 


309,422 365349 


409378 


418,153 


2003 


690,900 


195,427 


232301 


315,477 


373,009 


417394 


426336 


2004 


704,393 


199243 


236338 


321,639 


380,294 


425,750 


434363 


2005 


718,102 


203.121 


241,447 


327398 


387,696 


434,036 


443,122 


2006 


732,037 


207,063 


246,132 


334261 


395219 


442,458 


451,721 


2007 


746,198 


211.068 


250394 


340,728 


402,864 


451,018 460,460 


2008 


760388 


215,138 


255,732 


3472981 410333 


459,715 469339 


2009 


77SZ)9 


219274 


260,648 


353,975 


418327 


468353 


478362 


2010 


790,062 


223,476 


265M2 


360,757 


426346 


477330 


487327 


2011 


805,150 


227,743 


270,715 


367346 


434392 


486,649 


496337 


2012 


807314 


228,412 


271310 


368,726 


435,968 


488,078 


496296 


2013 


809335 


229,069 


272290 


369,785 


437,221 


489,481 


499,728 


2014 


812,108 


229,712 


273,055 


370323 


438,448 


490355 


501,131 


2015 


814335 


230341 


273303 


371340 


439351 


492,201 


502305 


Total 


14^1387 


4,oa2,a3c 


4352,25< 


6389,631 


7,791348 


9,722,631 


8,905;O7 



(1) Refer to Table N-IS for derivadon of net IC&I waste genention. 

(2) AMuming 60% coverage by 3Rs Regulatioiu (refer to Service Technical Appendix, Section 12.4 for detailed explanation.) 



May 1994 



Page N-23 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table N-23 

Estimated IC&I Waste Disposal Requirements 

for Six IC&I Systems in Durham Region 

19%-2015 



Year 


Estluuied 

NetlCM 

Wiate 


Edrttag 

Sytmm 


Bstimated tHsposid R«qttiiei&«iri« f ttmncrt 

^^^ tssr l!s;sr ^s^S:i 

t«C»ti*p(«« »«8"i«**» 8»gaWi«» lUgJjIiMW 
caic) 


NaUttimcNMl 


1996 


213,716 


153265 


141358 


116,129 


98333 


84342 


81337 


1997 


220^1 


157,973 


, 146216 


119397 


101354 


87,139 


84351 


1998 
1999 


227,039 


1623191 150,702 


123369 


104,463 


89312 


86,939 


233,992 


167,806 


155317 


127,147 


107362 


92363 


89302 


2000 


241,149 


172,938 


160,067 


131,036 


110,955 95393 


92342 


2001 


248311 


178,218 


164,954 


1354)36 


114343 


98306 


95,161 


2002 


255,779 


183,430 


169,779 


138,966 


117387 


101,181 


97,944 


2003 


263,241 


188,781 


174,732 


143,041 


121,120 


104,133 


100302 


2004 


270,904 


194Z^/ 


179318 


147205 


124346 


107,164 


103736 


2005 


278,769 


199,917 


185,039 


151,478 


128265 


110275 


106,748 


2006 


286344 


205,708 


190399 


155366 


131,980 


113,469 


109340 


2007 


295,130 


211,650 


195399 


160369 


135,793 


116,747 


113313 


2008 


303,634 


217,749 


1 
201344 164,989 


139,705 


120,111 


116269 


2009 


312360 


224,007 


207336 


169,731 


143,720 


123363 


119311 


2010 


321314 


230,427 


213278 


174396 


147340 


127,105 


123339 


2011 


330,497 


237,013 


219374 


179386 


152365 


130,738 


1263S6 


2012 


339,917 


243,769 


225,627 


184,705 


156,400 


134,464 


130,163 


2013 


349378 


250,697 


232,039 


189,954 


160345 


138286 


133362 


2014 


359,485 


257,802 


238316 


195338 


165,403 


142205 


137356 


2015 


369M1 


265,065 


245357 


200356 


170/)76 


14622: 


141345 


ToUl 


5,721,782 


4,103329 


3,797,951 


3,109,114 


2332355 


2,263,41t 


249131a 



( 1) Refer to Tible N- 1 5 for derivMioii of net IC4J waste genoition. 

(2) Auuming 60* coverage by 3Rs Reguluions (refer 10 Service Technical Appendix. Section 1 2.4 for detaiJed explanation.) 



May 1994 



Page N-24 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Tec finical Appendix 



Table N-24 

Estimated IC&I Waste Disposal Requirements 

for Six lC6d Systems in Metro Toronto 

1996-2015 



Year 


£uii»altd 
Net Ida 

Wwie 
Gener^hm 




BxlKtfakg^:. ] 
9*?*^ tilmnrfiidlti tIamiituitJBJi ^"^^>»« 


vt»tt*»tmJiea 


1996 


1^:7,312 


1,088,128 


1,007,147 


824,480 


696,132 


600,217 


581,018 


1997 
1998 


1317,033 


1,087,928 


l,006,%2l 824329 


696,004 


600,107 


580,911 


1316,674 


1, 087,670 1 1,006,7241 824,133 


697,838 


599,965 


580,774 


1999 


1316,233 


1,087,354 


1,006,431 823394 


697,635 


599,790 i 580,6051 


2000 


1315,711 


1,086,980 


1,006,085 823,610 


697395 


599384 


580,405 


2001 


1315,106 


1,086346 


1,005,6831 82331 


697,117 


599344 


580,173 


2002 


1313,370 


1,085,301 


1,004331 


822338 


696318 


598358 


5793O8 


2003 


1311,494 


1,063,956 


1,003,286 


821319 


695,455 


597,916 


578,790 


2004 


1309,478 


1,082310 


1,001,947 


820,223 


694327 


597,118 


578,018 


2005 


1307,318 


1,080,960 


1,0003131 819,049 


693333 


596,263 


577,191 


2006 


1305,011 


1,079,306 


998,982 


817,7% 


692,472 


595351 


576307 


2007 


1302355 


1,077345 


997352 


816,462 


691342 


594380 


575367 


2008 


1,499,950 


1,075,677 


995,623 815,046 


690,144 


5933491 574370I 


2009 


1,497,191 


1,073,698 


993,791 813347 


688374 


592,258 


573313 


2010 


1,494Z'6 


1,071,608 


991357 811,963 


687333 


591,105 


572,197 


2011 


1,491,204 


1,069,405 


989318 


^10294 


686,119 


589,889 


571,021 


2012 


1,484^7 


1,064316 


985,292 


806389 


682,983 


587,192 


568,410 


2013 


1,477,432 


1,059328 


980376 


802310 


679,783 


584,441 


565,747 


2014 


l,470;n7 


1,054,440 


975,966 


798,955 


676,518 


581 335 


563,030 


2015 


1,463,101 


1,049,251 


971,164 


795,023 


673,189 


578,772 


560,259 


Total 


30/125,173 


21,532307 


19,929328 


16315,139 


13314.911 


11377334 


11^97,413 



( 1 ) Refer to Table N- 16 for deiivahon of net IC&I waste genenlion. 

(2) Assuming 60% covtiage by 3Rs Regulariorw (refer to Service Technical Appendix. Section 1 2.4 for detailed expUnntion.) 



May 1994 



PageN-25 



Ministry of Envirotment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table N-25 

Estimated IC&I Waste Disposal Requirements 

for Six IC&I Systems in York Region 

1996-2015 



Vesr 


Esdm^itd 

NetlC&I 

Vtmtt 


EriMInc 


B»iiau 
OMnmUiM 


tted Di«tpota.t R«q«&rem«iit»<tOtm«^ 

BtmitAZM* t^emJhiSXm ^^^_^f' 


;: ■:-:-:;:::;;;;v:;'?:o-;>::::::::S: 

Wwivto'iiitjiir 

■- mmsm 


1996 


468,789 


336,188 


311,168 


254,732 


215395 


185,443 


179311 


1997 


483,918 


347,038 


321211 


262,953 


222356 


191,428 


185305 


1998 


499320 


358227 


331367 


271,430 


229335 i 197,600 


191079 


1999 


515^7 


369,764 


342045 


280,172 


237037 


203363 


197,439 


2000 


532,193 


381,658 


353054 


289,184 


244368 


210324 


203,790 


2001 


549,293 


393,921 


364,604 


298,476 


252,736 


217089 


210338 


2002 

1 


5^,312 


405,409 


375038 


307,180 


260,106 


223326 


216,473 


2003 


581,754 


417000 


386,151 


316,115 


267371 


230,130 


222,769 


2004 


598,626 


429300 


397350 


325082 


275,434 


236304 


229029 


2005 


615,937 


441,714 


408,841 


334389 


283399 


243352 


235358 


2006 


633,695 


454,449 


420,628 


344339 


291370 


250377 


242358 


2007 


651,911 


467312 


432,719 


354037 


299,951 


257,882 


249333 


200S 


670392 


480,910 


445,119 


3643881 308347 


^ \ 

2650721 256,787 


2009 


689,748 


494,647 


457335 


374,797 


317361 


1 
272350 264,122 


2010 


709389 


508,733 


470372 


385,469 


326398 


280320 271343 


2011 


729322 


523,171 


484036 


396,409 


335361 


288384 


, 

279353 


2012 


734307 


526,746 


487344 


399,118 


337,955 


290356 


281062 


2013 


739,456 


530295 


490329 


401307 


340032 


292313 


283,157 


2014 


744343 


533,943 


494006 


404371 


342372 


294326 


285,105 


2015 


749395 


537566 


497359 


407316 


344397 


296324 


287339 


Total 


12,4«,908 


8,938390 


8073,176 


6.T72.663 


5,734,781 


4,930,463 


4,77i7S2 



(1) 

(2) 



Refer to Table N- 17 for derivuion of net IC&I wute geneniion. 

Assuming 60* coverage by 3Rs Regulations (refer to Service Technical Appendix. Section 12.4 for detailed explanation.) 



May 1994 



Page N-26 



Ministry cf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Anaiysis - Sen-ice Technicai Appendix 



Table N-26 

Estimated IC&I Waste Disposal RequiTements 

for Six IC&I Systems in Peel Region 

1996-2015 



Yecr 



19% 



1997 



1998 



1999 



2000 



2001 



2002 



2003 



2004 



M05 



Mtm 



598^5 



6n;j7i 



624;295 



637,469 



650,897 



o64^9U 



677,A38 



690,900 



704,393 



2D06 



2007 



2008 



2009 



2010 



2011 



2012 



2013 



2014 



2015 



Total 



718,102 



732,037 



746,198 



760,568 



775,209 



790,062 



805,150 



807,514 



809335 



812,108 



814,336 



14,431 ,M7 



429,349 



438,440 



447,708 



457,156 



466,786 



476,605 



485,962 



495,473 




|dlHd::::i 



397;»6 



405,810 



414;389 



32542) 



332,208 



339,231 



423,133 



34639 



432,046 



441,135 



449,796 



458,599 



505,150 



514,981 



524,974 



535,130 



545,449 



555,935 



5663S7 



577,407 



579,102 



580,767 



582,397 



467356 



476,655 



485,904 



495,304 



504356 



514361 



524,420 



534,435 



536,004 



537345 



5394)54 



583,994 



103493SZ 



540332 



9379,131 



353,686 




'M^^smit^mtpmi^^^ 



^ lip 



275,466 



281,299 



28735 



293306 



299,485 



361,126 



306,785 



368,216 



311,789 



375,423 



382,755 



390,204 



397,776 



405,471 



413,290 



421,235 



429306 



437304 



438,789 



440,050 



441285 



442,495 



7341,756 



317391 



324,099 



330,407 



336318 



343334 



349,955 



356382 



363316 



370,458 



371346 



372314 



373360 



374384 



6340,040 



236331 



241346 



246,958 



252,169 



257,481 



262398 



268,059 



273306 



278343 



284366 



289378 



295,180 



300373 



306357 



312332 



318301 



319,436 



320354 



321 J53 



322,134 



5,708,757 






229,256 



234,110 



239359 



244,103 



249,245 



254,489 



259,485 



264363 



269,730 



274380 



280316 



285,739 



291,249 



296348 



30(2335 



308313 



309218 



310,107 



310377 



311330 



532«,i5a 



(t) ReferloTabkN-lBfordoivationof netlCAJwHtegenoation. 

(2) Auamiiig 60* covoage by 3R» Regnlmtioiu (refer lo Service TechnicsJ Appendu. Section 12.4 for dettiled explanatioii.) 



May 1994 



Page N-27 



SCHEDULE O 

INFORMATION ON CURRENT IC&I WASTE 
DIVERSION ACTIVITIES 

0-1 General Overview of Private Sector 

Haulers and Recyclers in GTA 
0-2 Surveys of IC&I Waste Diversion 

Activities in GTA in 1992 
0-3 Mandatory IC&I Recycling Ordinances 
0-4 Contacts Made for Estimation of Coverage 

of 3Rs Regulations 
0-5 Flow Control 



Ministry of Enviroiimeiu and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Append 



SCHEDULE O-l — GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PRIVATE SECTOR 
HAULERS AND RECYCLERS IN GTA 

Management of IC&I waste in the GTA is carried out mostly by private sector haulers, 
recyclers, brokers and pnx;essors, and material is sold to end maritets both within and outside 
the GTA. An overview of the industries which provide IC&I waste management services is 
presented below. 

Note that a large majority of the waste haulers in the GTA are able to provide some sort of 
recycling collection service for their customers. 

Waste Haulers 

The waste hauling industry in the GTA can be divided into 3 categories by company size, level 
and location of service. The range of materials collected by recycling companies that service 
the GTA IC&I sector primarily include: OCC, mixed office paper, metal food and beverage 
cans, glass bottles, plastics (rigid and flexible), and wood waste. 

Large Companies 

The largest group of haulers operating in the GTA represent three of the largest multi-national 
waste hauling companies in North America. Waste Management Inc. (WMI), Browning-Ferris 
Industries (BFI) and Laidlaw Waste Systems are the most dominant haulers in the GTA. Each 
of these companies provides a wide-range of waste collection services to the IC&I sector. 
These services include: 

• containerized service - provision of 20, 30 and 40 cubic yard (cy) containers and 
compactors (if requested) to customers. Containers are collected by a dedicated 
truck which services one container at a time; 

• front-end loader service - provision of containers from 2 to 10 cy capacity and 
compactors (if requested) which are serviced with a front-end loader truck. The 
truck can collect from up to 30 accounts before becoming filled; 

• rear-packer service - provision of collecdon service to customers using a rear 
packer truck. The truck collects from custorners who do not have the space, 
accessibility or volume of waste to effectively use a container. Waste is manually 
loaded into the truck 

Both Laidlaw and BFI provide recycling programs promoting source separation. Recycling 
containers (e.g. roll-out carts) are providoi to customers for in-house collection of recyclables. 
These containers arc then collected by the hauler on a regular or call basis. The hauler collects 
the recyclables with a separate truck and usually charges the customer a monthly or per pickup 
fee. 

WMI operates a different type of program that does not require extensive source separation. 
The customer is asked to separate waste into dry (e.g. paper, OCC, glass, cans, plastics etc.) 
and wet (e.g. food and bathroom) waste. WMI collects the materials separately using 
conventional garbage collection equipment The wet fraction is sent for disposal and the dry 
fraction used to be sent to the Recycle Clanada (WMTs recycling company) facility in Etobicoke 
where die recyclables were mechanically and manually recovered for recycling. The facility 
closed in late 1993. 

These companies tend not to service the construction, renovation and demolition industry. 
Materials are usually taken for processing in a private MRF, except in die case of high volume 

May 1994 ; ^ [ ~ Page 01-1 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technicai Appendix 



materials such as wood and OCC. These high volume materials are collected in containers 
provided by the hauler and taken directly to a processor or end market. 

Middle Level Companies 

The second level of waste haulers can best be described as regional haulers that provide a 
similar level of service, but individually do not have the same customer base. Also included 
are large recycling companies that specialize in one type of material. The haulers tend to 
provide a multi -material service, similar to Laidlaw or BFI, whereas the large recycling 
companies tend to handle a more limited number of materials that are associated with their 
business interests. 

This second level of haulers number between 10 and 20 companies and have the ability (i.e. 
equipment) to provide a range of collection services to clients such as containerized, front-end 
loader and rear-packer services. Examples of these types of companies include: Philips 
Environmental, Miller Waste Systems, L.W. Sanderson, York Disposal, Wasteco, Pak- 
Man/Tower Disposal, Select Disposal Services, Canadian Disposal Services and U-Pak 
Disposal. Examples of the large recycling companies in this category include Domtar, Atlantic 
Packaging, Alcan Recycling, and large scrap metal companies such as Triple M Metals. 

These companies tend to work on a more regional basis, but usually have clients in a number 
of GTA municipalides. For example. Miller is heavily involved in York and Durham regions, 
while Sanderson is mart focused in Peel and Halton. 

Third Level Companies 

Third level companies are characterized by being smaller and independent, with a more limited 
level of service and customer base. They provide a range of services that may handle a wide 
range of recyclables but exclude regular garbage. These companies tend only to provide 
containerized services to heavy industrial, large commercial (require container and/or 
compactor) accounts, and are very, active in the construction, renovation and demolition 
industry. 

Some examples of these types of companies include Cougar EHsposal, Romano Disposal, J&F 
Disposal, Cardinal Waste, Via Disposal, R&R Haulage, Metro Waste Paper, Turtle Island, 
Enviro-Glass, The Paper Option, HGC Management, AAA Recycling and Office Waste 
Management 

Profile of GTA Recycling Companies 

There are over 220 private sector companies providing a range of hauling, processing and 
marketing services for IC&I wastes in GTA. A complete listing of all IC&I recycling 
companies in GTA is available through the Recycling Council of Ontario. A profile of the 
number of companies covering the range of IC&I waste materials is provided in Table 0-1.1 
(RCO, 1992). Table 0-1.3 at the end of this section summarizes available data on IC&I 
haulers and recyclers operating in the GTA (RCO, 1993). 

Description of a Selection IC&I Processing Facilities in GTA 

A description of all of the processing facilities in GTA is not included in this report. A number 
of facilities are described however, to illustrate the size and range of facilities in existence. 
These arc organized by the materials handled. A selection of IC&I processing facilities in GTA 
is presented in the brief description below. 



May 1994 Page 01-2 



Mimsoy ofEimroiuneiu and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Techmcal AptteiuHx 



Table O-l.l 

Estimated Number of GTA Recycling Companies 
Involved in Management of Different Materials, 1992 



Material 



Number of GTA Companies that 
Baul^ Process^ Market the Material* 



Asphalt and Concrete 

Constniction & Demolition 

Drum Reconditioning 

Drywall 

Food & Beverage Cans 

Food & Organic Waste 

Glass 

Scrap Metal Recovery 

Paper Products 

Plastics 

Social Service Organizations 

Textiles 

Tires 

Wood 



21 

19 

10 

24 

31 

20 

22 

57 

89 

68 

9 

9 

18 

63 



*Note: the number of services shown adds to greater than the total of 220 because several 
companies provide multiple services. 

Source: Recycling Council of Ontario. Secondary Material Markets Directory, 1992. 



May 1994 



Page 01-3 



MUiisoy of Enviroiunent oitdEiurgy 
GTA 3Rs Anaiysis — Service Technical Appendix 



Food Wastes: v 

Barrets Pig Farm is located in Brooklin. This faim has capacity to receive up to 4,000 
tonnes food and organic waste annually. 

Hy Hope Fanns is a hog fanning operation which utilizes food waste firbm restaurant, 
hotels and cafeterias as a food source. The facility's stated capacity is 1 ,200 tonnes. 

Scott's Composting Farm in Milton, Ontario has been in operation since January 1991 
(diough temporarily closed in 1993V The site accepts commercial organics (i.e. food 
waste), wood, brush, leaves and grass clippings, low grade pq)er and corrugated, and 
miscellaneous materials such as voUcacco fines and gypsum board paper. The site is an open 
air windrow operation. It currently handles about 40 tonnes pet day and is permitted to 
accept a total of 20,000 tonnes per year (John Bremncr, OAA site manager. May 3). 

Construction and Demolition Wastes: 

Elirpa Construction Materials operates a concrete crushing operation in Pickering. 
The facility has an estimated capacity of 1(X),0(X) tonnes of concrete waste annually. 

Hamden & King Construction is a construction waste facility that has capacity to 
receive up to 14,0^ tonnes of asphalt and concrete per year. It is located in Brooklin. 

Bennet Paving in Oshawa is a manufacturer of asphalt paving which had a stated 
capacity of 35,^X) tonnes of concrete waste to be mixed with 25,000 tonnes of reclaimed 
asphalt in 1992. 

Drywall Scrap Co. is a depot accepting scrap drywall, located in Oshawa. It has 
capacity to receive up to 2,4(X) tcmnes annually. 

Queensway Recycling is a new facility located in Etobicoke. A joint venture between 
d^aidinal Waste and Teperman Demolition, the facility receives C&D and IC&I wastes and 
recovers mixed office paper, OCC, wood and drywall and metals. 

Harkow Aggregates and Recycling is located in the Toronto harbourfront area. 
Harkow operates a C&D processing and transfer operation with an operating capacity of 
150,(XX) tonnes per year. The company manually separates wood, metals and (X!C to 
achieve a 7% to 15% diversion of materials acceptol Harkow hope to construct a state-of- 
the-art facility which will mechanically process C&D waste. The start-up date is October 
1994. 

Conwaste operates a C&D and IC&I waste processing and transfer operation in 
Mississauga. Through manual separation, wood waste and OCC are recovered and sent to 
markets. The facility handles approximately 50,(X)0 tonnes of materials per year. 

Teperman opo'ates a processing facility for their own demolition wastes. Brick and 
concrete, wood and metals are separated manually and with frcmt-end loaders. 

Canadian Eagle Recyclers is located in Maikham. Canadian Eagle is affiliated with 
Greenspoon Demolition and operates a mixed C&D processing and transfer operation. 
Manual separation is utilized to recover wood, drywall, metals, OCC and used carpet 
materials. Canadian Eagle further proc^scs wood waste on-site. The operation has an 
operating ciy>acity of approximately 75,000 toiuies per year. 

Several paving manufacturing operations utilize reclaimed asphalt and concrete wastes in 
the production of new asphalt paving. Two examples of these include Fermar Asphalt 
in Etobicoke and Warren Bitulithic in Downsview. 

May 1994 . Page 01-4 



Miidstry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



Traditional IC&I Recyclables (Cans, Bottles, OCC, OfTice Papers, etc.) 

Courtesy Transfer operates a transfer operation for IC&I wastes where selected 
materials such as OCC, wood, plastics and other papers are removed prior to transfer. The 
Mississauga facility has an estitnattd capacity of 130,000 tonnes per year. 

Harrison Disposal operates a waste transfer and sorting operation in Brampton which 
has a capacity of 15,000 tonnes per year. The facility handles mixed IC&I recyclables. 
Most of the material handled by the facility is likely to have been generated in Peel Region. 

L.W. Sanderson operates a waste transfer and sorting operation in Brampton which has 
an estimated annual capacity of 100,000 tonnes of dry IC&I recyclables and residential 
Blue Box materials. 

Waste Management of Canada Inc. operated a mixed waste sorting and transfer 
operation in Etobicoke. This facility began operation in 1991 to process select, source 
separated IC&I recyclables (OCC, wood, mixed papers, metals, glass and plastics) 
primarily from WMI customers (although the facility was open to other haulers who are 
able to provide the same quality of material). The facility had the ability to process 400 
tonnes/day of mixed waste and was limited to a daily residue quantity of 200 tonnes. 
Diversion of incoming waste was estimated at 50% - 55% in 1993. The facility was closed 
in late 1993. 

Laidlaw operates a large MRF in Mississauga which processes all the material collected 
from the municipal curbside and apartment recycling programs in Mississauga and 
Brampton. In addition, materials from the approximately 2,(XX) IC&I locations that are 
recycling in the GTA are processed at the MRF. The materials handled include mixed 
paper, OCC, metal cans, glass and polystyrene. The facility currently handles 
approximately 28,000 tonnes/yr of municipal material, and 12,000 tonnes/yr. of IC&I 
material. Laidlaw is constructing a new MRF/transfer station on the same site with a 
capacity of 200 tonnes/yr. 

Miller Waste Systems operates a large operation in Markham which includes an IC&I 
processing facility, wiUi the abihty to handle wood waste, drywall, concrete and asphalt 
waste. Miller lists materials accepted in Mcttt)*s market directory as OCC, ONP, mixed 
office paper, metal cans, glass and most plastics. 

Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) operates a MRF in Concord for IC&I customers. 
BFI declined to provide additional information, however, BFI lists in the Metro Toronto 
Markets Directory under materials handled <X!C, mixed office paper, beverage cans, glass 
and wood. 

Prowaste, in cooperation with Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI), operate an IC&I MRF 
in Mississauga. The facility has an estimated capacity of 50,()00 tonnes, and handles (X!C, 
office paper and wood wastes. 

The Recycler Inc. operates a sorting and processing operation for IC&I recyclables 
such as mixed office paper, inetal cans and glass. The facility is located in Concord. 

Waste Papers: 

Domtar operates a paper fibre sorting and processing operation in Etobicoke. The facility 
receives primarily OCC and office papers from haulers and paper generators. The papers 
are sorted by grade and baled for shipping to Domtar facilities and other markets. The 
facility capacity is estimated to be 75,0(X) tonnes of paper fibres. Domtar also operates a 
May 1994 [ '■ ~ PageOl-5 



Ministry <^ Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



liner board manufacturing facility in Biampton which utilizes OCC in the manufacture of 
new caidboard container. 

Metro l^aste Paper operates a sorting and processing operation in Scaiixsrough which 
handles ail grades of pj^r, metal cans, glass bottles and pallets. 

Turtle Island services the IC&I sector and collects mixed office paper, metal cans and 
glass. It operates a small sorting and processing operation in Etobicokc. 

Specialized Wastes: 

Thermal Waste Reduction (TWR) operates a facility in Scarborough which operates a 
thermal screw press. The machinery has been used for a number of applications including 
the processing of wood waste and tires. 

Lennox Drum Ltd. is a drum reconditioning facility that has capacity to receive up to 
10,400 t<Hines of steel and plastic drums annually. It is located in Ajax. 

National Rubber Co. has been using recycled tires in the manufacture of various rubber 
products since 1927. In 1992, the company consumed approximately 22,500 tonnes of 
tires. National Rubber is expanding their operations to handle a total of 45,000 tonnes of 
tires firom Ontario by 1997. * 

Aican Recycling operates a processing operation in Brampton which handles primarily 
aluminum cans collected through the Brewers' Retail (BRI) and municipal curbside 
collection programs. Alcan also handles and processes glass and cans collected from IC&I 
customers, plastics from the BRI and other packaged beverages. 

Wood Conversions Inc. (WCI) is a wood processing operation located in Brampton. 
The facility receives mixed and clean loads of wood waste and processes the wood through 
a series of chippers and screens to pnxluce a consistent sized wood chip. The facility has 
an estimated capacity of 23,000 tonnes of wood waste per year. Most of the material 
handled by the facility is likely to have been generated in Peel Region. 

The Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association (CPRA) operates a sorting and 
processing facility in Mississauga. The facility receives polystyrene from large generators 
(e.g. automotive nuuiufacturers), haulers and municipalities for processing and eventual 
sale to plastic manufacturers. The estimated annual capacity is 25,000 tonnes per year. In 
1992, the facility processed 864 tonnes from the IC&I sector, including 186 tonnes of 
foam and rigid plastics from food service establishments. (Recycled Plastics Update, 
1992). 

Knowaste Technologies has recently established a facility in Mississauga that 
processes used diapers and sanitary napkins from hospitals and nursing homes. 

IKO Industries in Brampton use wood waste and OCC in the manufacture of roof felt 
and shingles. The facility has expanded capacity to handle 30,000 tonnes of wood waste in 
1993. 

Westroc is a drywall manufacturer which purchases recycled gypsum from New West 
Gypsum in Oakville. The recycled gypsum is used in the manufacture of new drywall 
sheeting. 



May 1994 Page 01-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



Waste Exchange, and Reuse, 

Various facilities provided exchange services (e.g. Ontario Waste Exchange, local waste 
exchange program in Duriiam, the Re-Uzc Centre, Scarborough, WASTEWISE, Halton, etc.) 

The Ontario Waste Exchange (OWE) assists waste generators to identify markets for their 
waste materials. In 1992, OWE handled approximately 56,0(X) tonnes of materials. The 
proportion of these generated by GTA companies is not known. Since stan-up in 1987, OWE 
has handled a total of roughly 222,(XX) tonnes of waste materials in the Province of Ontario 
(OWE, 1993). 

Survey of Recycling Companies 

A representative number (approximately 60 of the 220) of companies providing a range of 
hauling, processing and tnarketing services in GTA were selected for a survey to determine 
quantities of material handled in 1S^2 (the survey questionnaire and covering letter from MOEE 
are included at the end of this Section). Of the 60 target companies 54 companies were 
reached, and 37 participated. Most private haulers and recyclers contacted were unwilling to 
divulge proprietary information concerning their operations and capacities, however, 
indications of recycling activity for some materials were provided. Information was obtained 
from two of the largest companies, 5 middle-level and 30 small hauling and recycling 
companies. 

Of the 54 companies contacted, 28 companies provided data on the tonnages of materials 
diverted in 1992. The 28 responding companies diverted an estimated 633,000 tonnes of 
waste in GTA in 1992. A similar number provided information on the number of IC&I 
accounts handled in 1992. The total number of accounts handled by approximately 28 
responding companies was roughly 14,000. Of the 54 companies contacted, 31 reported 
employing 860 people. Table O- 1 .2 summarizes these results. 

References 

Information on 3Rs Facilities in the GTA, Table received from MOEE, June 10, 1993. 

Memo to RIS from MOEE, Additional Information from WRO, February 15, 1994. 

Ontario Recycling Resouicebook, Secondary Material Markets Directory, Recycling Council of 
(Dntario, Published by Southam Information and Technology Group, 1993. 

Ontario Waste Exchange, 1993, personal communication mth Mary Jane Hanley, March, 
1993. 

Recycling Council of Ontario, Secondary Material Markets Directory, 1992 

Resource Recycling, "PS Recycling News", Recycled Plastics Update, June 1992 



May 1994 Page 01-7 



Miidstry cfEnnronmeiU and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analyas — Sayice T(chmcal Appendix 



TaUeO-lJ 

Sumnmry of the Result* from 

Survey of Rccydcrt/Haulcn In GTA 

May ■ July, 1993 





N*.A«iia 


T<aM«f]T 


NowEiiVl 


N*.V*le 


T— 




1 


20 


2.231 


28 





112) 8C| 


2 


■ 1000 


lt.300 


15 


7 


19 


1113 


3 


75 


43.600 


7 


7 


511 


6229 


4 


20 


460 






23 





5 


11 


3.000 






167 





6 






10 


3 








7 


400 


2.400 


7 


2 


6 


343 


B 




100 






ol ol 


9 


2.S00 


9,600 


22 


4 


4 


1 4361 


10 


50 


109.000 


33 


3 


21801 3303I 


11 


200 


7,300 


25 


4 37 292I 


12 


a 


12.000 


3 


3 


15001 4000 


13 


100 


4.500 


1 





451 4500 


14 


500 


53.000 


50 


6| 561 660 


li 


200 


130,000 


25 


20i 6501 5200 


16 






7 


4 


0! C 


17 


120 


100 


3 


1 


ij 33 


18 










0| 


19 


SO 


130 


1 


ll 2| 130 


20 


20 


1.800 


10 


3 901 IBC 


21 


20 


900 


2 


1 45l ■ 450 


22 


60 




6 




01 


23 


5,000 




200 


10 


o( 


24 


1.300 


.119.500 


149 


I6{ 92! 802 


25 


150 


33,000 


30 


5! 220! 1100 


26 


30 


1,500 


6 


2 


501 250 


27 










01 


li 


35 




13 


t 


Ol 


29 




15,00C 


33 




01 429 


30 


2a 


) I8C 


3C 


) 121 11 6 


31 


30( 


) \4i 




2I 01 47 


32 


25( 


> 2,00( 


) i: 


I 31 81 167 


33 




62.50t 


) 6. 


S 1 01 962 


34 













d 


35 


\H 


3 2.001 




1 


3 13 2000 


36 


121 


J !5.3a 


} 4 


5 1 


1281 340 


37 


ga 


D 3.4a 


3 1 


& 


4 4I 213 


Tol^ 


13.71 


i 633.14 


1 86 


1411 451 7361 


Mom: 

1 CM UBfaay nimywl coUmca IS.OCC old Mitnti 

4 Comvunm 1 8,^7 ind 34 pn^iOtd mtonnuwn not itwim n iiMc 



May 1994 



PageOJ-8 



TableO-1.3 
IC&I Processing Services and Facilities in GTA 



US 



T 

T 



T 

T 



"5" 

T 



T 
T 



-w 

TT 



IT 
IT 



14 



i^iss 



j^iBiiPl 






TSITS 



icrviccs 



Achicvor Tire Ltd. 



Adanac Computer Supplies & 

Accessories 

Aimco Soiree Ltd. 



Al's Waste (liontrol inc. 
Albis Canada Inc. 



A lean Recycling, A Division oJ 
A lean Aluminum Ltd. 



Atl-Typc Containers Lid. 



BuSIDfM TjfP* 



Hauler; Processor Brolcer: ^nd" 
user; Consultants 

Processor; Hauler 



Processor 



Broker, Hauler, Processor; 
Importer/Exporter 



Almac Products and Union Fell 

Products 

Alternative Recycling Services Ltd. 



AMP Waste Systems Inc. 
Anachemia Solvents Ltd. 



Andrew's Scenic Acres 
Arch Industries 



Transfer, Processor; some 

recycling 

Broker, Importer/Exporter, 
Compounder 



Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Hauler; Processor 
Hauler; Processor 



Processors; Haulers 
Hauler; Processor 



End- user 



Processor; Broker, 
Importer/Exponer, End-user 



Materiiili 



Clean fill; all grades oi paper, metals; 
plastics; all wood; OCC; organics; lead 
acid batteries; clear and coloured glass; 
rubber; tires 

Passenger & truck tires; agricultural; 
off -road; industrial solid; rubber 

E jducts 

ser jet cartridges; fabric ribbons 



Liquid wastes; paints; solvents; inks; 

paint sludges 

commercial and industrial solid non- 

hazardous waste 

-SISTTCrPSTPPTSANrrPRrfRF^ 

PE; nylon; metal and steel cans; OCC; 
steel drums; lab solvents; glass bottles 



Aluminum cans; glass containers; 
aluminum foil; aluminum bottle caps; 

OCC; boxboard ■ 

New and used reusable coirugated 
cardboard cartons which are off-spec 
Assorted lextilcs 



Mixed office paper; OcO; ONh pop 
cans; beverage bottles; wood skids 
CkD debris: OCC; drywaU; wood; 

metal , 

Solvents; liquid waste; lubricating and 

rrwtor oil ^ 

Clean sawdust, wood shavings, 
woodchips, chipped Christmas trees 
All forms of textile waste; paper 



Reference 



if 

I 

83 



I 






TT 



16 



TT 



IF 






TT 



TT 



IT 



IX^ 



IS 



^ 



IT 
IT 



IT 



ir 



Aidee Recyciing Inc. 
Associatea Metal Products 



Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd. 



Autoination Services 
B & M Metal Recycling 



broken Hauler, Pnxxsscar 
Hauler, Processor 



Hauler, Processor 



Hauler; Processor 
Hauler; Processor 



Banner Rendering Ltd. 



Barrett's Pig Fann 
Beginners Computers 



Bennett Paving and Materials LtT 



Bergman Bairel and Drum Co. Ltd. 
bPfWasteSy! 



/Stems 



Blue Disposal 

Bradex Industrial Services Ltd. 



radex indusi 
Bronte 3R's 



Bruce Smith Disposal Service 



CNC (Voik RegwH) 



Calder Recycling Systems 



Hauler; Processor 



Processor 



Processor 

Hauler, Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Processor 
Hauler; Processor 



Hauler; Processor 
Hauler, Processcw 



MRF - fine paper 

Broker, Consultant; End-user, 

Exporter/Importer, Hauler; 

Processor 




6UPilten 

Industrial ferrous and non-ferrous 

metals; white goods 

OCC: ONP; plastic bags; baled kralt 
bags; coated book stock; assorted white 
ledger, black and white ledger; HDPE 

bags. OMG 

Fabric printer ribbons; toner cartridges 

and toners 

Ferrous and non-ferrous metais; 

autonx>tive batteries 

Bones, fat, grain processing and milling 

by-products 

Food and organic scraps 



Computer equipment; electronic office 
equipment; technical books and 

manuals; electronic magazines 

Asphalt and concrete 



Metal and plastic drums 



Metal ana plastic arums 

Dry wall; clear and coloured glass; cans; 
scrap metal; OCC; ONF, fine paper, 
HDPE; plastic wrap; pallets; skids; 

wood waste 

Commercial and solid non-hazardous 

W3StC 

Plastic scrap: PP, PE. PS, ABS. PVC; 



also plastic products and additives 
OCC; boxboard; metal cans; glass; fine 



paper, ONP; magazines; telephone 
books; scrap metal; plastics 



t5CC" 



Fine paper and OCC ^~~~~^~ 
Lbt'E; HbJ'^; HIM; W; f>VC; ABS; 
PP; plastic film scrap including plastic 
bags; OCC; fine paper; all wood 



T 
T 



I.. 
Hi 









ll 



"NaT 






^ 



gRlNlgUd. 



BitaiMsai Tjrp« 



Materials 



icrence 



^ 



PrcKcssor 



Canada Compost 



In-vessel composling facility 



Clear, green and brown glass; 
aluminum and steel beverage and food 
cans; PET; HOPE 



IC&I food waste 



IT 



Canada Iron and Metal Co. Ltd. 



35" 



Processor 



The Canada Metal Co. Ltd. 



Ferrous and non-ferrous metals; 
batteries 



W 



TT 



Processor 



Canadian Eagle Recyclcrs Inc. 



Hauler; Pnxressor, Rccycler and 
transfer station 



Automotive batteries; scrap lead; lead 
residues; tin alloys; industrial batteries 



Canadian foundation for World 
Development 



Clean wood (pallets, crates included); 
C&D debris (drywall, brick, reinforced 
concrete); metals; clean asphalt and 
asphalt shingles; white goods; 
carpeting; all roofmg materials 
including flatdeck 



Any material or equipment which will 
benefit 3rd world countries 



End- user; Processor 



Canadian Laser Products Inc. 



38 



W 



rocessor 



Canadian Polystyrene Recycling 
Association 



Hauler, Processor 



Laser printer cartridgcT 



W 



JT 



IT 



Canadian Ribbon Rollers, Inc. 



Canadian Textile Recycling Ltd. 



42 Capital Paying 



Polystyrene 



Hauler; Processor, End-user 



End-user; Processor; Consultant; 
Importer/Exporter, Broker 



End-user; Processor 



Carti Save 



Laser and photocopier toner cartridgesT 

computer printer ribbons 

Clothing; new and used textile cuttings; 
rolled textile; work clothes; fibre and 
thread wastes; shoes; handbags; belts 
Foundry sand; concrete and asphalt 
rubble; reclaimed asphalt pavement; 
other granular materials 



In 

h 

a. a 






IT 



End-user; Hauler, Processor 



Ohanc Marketing Inc. 
Chem Ecol Ltd. 



Processor 



Laser toner cartridges; Canon PC toner 
cartridges; fax cartridges 



Processor; Hauler 



PP; PET; LLDPE and LDPg 
All industrial oil 



Chep Canada Inc 



tlauler; Processor 






S 

3 



TT 



Chcrrymill Iron and Metal Co. 



Hauler; Processor 



CHEP pallets (their own pallets) 



I 



Cast iron, steel, aluminum, stainless 
steel, copper, brass, insulated electrical 
wire, electric motors; white goods; 
negative film; car and truck batteries 



5 



I 

I 



19" 

w 



IT 



IT 



IT 



35" 
IT 



IT 



■ar" 



"ST 



"5T 



■53" 
■ST 



"57" 
W 



W 
liT 



City Forest 



Climatizer insulation 
Co- Steel Lasco 



Colantonio Metals Ltd. 



Combine Disposal l^crvices 
Command Record Services 



Compressed Metals 



Computer Ribbon Rescue 



Confidential kccycling iiervice 
Ltd. 



Conros Corporation' 



Consumers Glass 
Continental Paper (Jrading ot 
Canada Inc. 



Conwastclnc. 

Cooper's Iron and Metal Inc. 



;Ent. 



Co py Charge _ 

Conindol Environmental Ltd. 



Courtesy Transfer 
Crown Metals 



D. Qupi and Sons Ltd. 
D.E.L. Discount 



Daily Bread Food Bank 
Dcsbro Polymers (Canada) Ltd. 



Direct Disposal 



BusiReMljpt 



Consultant; Hauler; Processor 
Processor 



Broker, End-user; Hauler; 

Processor 

Hauler; Processor 



Hauler; Processor 
Hauler; Pn>cessor 



Broker, Importer/Exporter, 
Processor; Consultant 



Hauler; Processor 
Broker, Processor 



End-user 
End-user; Processor 



Broker, Importer/Exporter; 

Processor 

Hauler; Processor 



Hauler; Processor 
Processor; End- user 



Processor 



Transfer, processor 

Hauler; Processor, Consultant 

Broker; Importer/Exporter 



Processor 
Processor 



End- user 



Processor 



Processor; Recycler 



Matemut 



All paper gra des 
ONP-.OCC 



Scrap, ferrous metals except cast iron 



Ferrous and non-ferrous metals; 
aluminum, brass, copper, zinc, lead, 
insulated cable 



Computer printout (CPO); general 



P aper records from business; fine paper 
errous and non-ferrous scrap metals; 



computer and electronic scrap; circuit 
boards; plugs and telephone relays 
Laser toner cartridges; fabric printer 
ribbons; PC computer equipment 
t^lnc paper; ONP, UcO; mixed paper, 
metal cans (aluminum and pop cans); 



glass containers 

Har dwood sawdust and woodchips 



Glass containers 



OCC; office paper; ONP; books 



All solid, non-hazardous waste 
Ferrous and non-fcnous metals 



Laser toner cartridges 

Motor and hydrauUc oil; oily water; 

acids and alkalis 



a<^iua aim giivmij ^ 

Dry ICI: UCC. wood, paper, plastic 
Aluminum, stainless steel, copper; 



copper; 

brass; steel 

Broker asphalt and concrete 
Off- specification items/materials; wood 
allets 



pallets 

Non-perishable edible tood items 



Post-consumer HDi'E 



Drywall, aluminum, metals, cardboard 



T" 
T 






s. 
ii3 



t*i 



1 



res 



I 




7T 

71 



IT 



IT 
IT 



IT 

IT 






W 
IT 



■gr 

IT 



■gr 



IT 

w 



Doimnion Mfe ttontainers Canad a 
Domtar Packaging - Recycling 



Processor 



Durham Recycling Centre 



Easv-Pack Corpor ation" 
■w — ^ n . n^ ' L. .-I 



Eco-Mat Environmental 

Restoration Inc. 

Eco-Rez fenteniriscs 



Eco-Tank 
Eco-Wood Products 



Ecopal (ianada Inc. . . . j 

Flirna Constru ction Materials Ltd. 
m S I g l UJ A. H!,»»«.i 



EnvMOgard iihreddinp & uisposal 



Enviro^jlass Recycling Inc. 
Envirotcch Recycling Systems 



"W I Envi sion Recycling 

"53 l EMvJdbd 

Exalloy Metals Inc. 

Extrcdz 



Broker, Hauler; Processor; 
Consultant; End-user, 
Exporter/Importer 



Processor 



Hauler; Processor 
End- user; Processor 



fabricated Mastics Ltd. (PAbO^T 
Fennar Asphalt Ltd. 



Processor 

Hauler; Processor, bnd-User, 

Broker ■ 

Hauler; Processor, (!!onsultani 



Processor 



Processor 
Hauler, Processcff 



Hauler; Processor 



Broker, Processor 



Broker, Consultant; Processor 
Processor 



Processor; End- user 
Processor 



Processor" 
Processor 



Materteli 



p 



Fibre drums 

OCC (other paper grades too .*) 



Residential and commercial Blue box. 

cardboard atid fine papcr 

Loose-fill Pii: reusable UCC containers 



Asphalt; concrete; drywall; brick; 
shingles; wood 



Laser toner cartridges; ribbons 
All size propane tanks 



Scrap wood; used pallets; skids; 
sawdust; crates and spools (any size); 
ON P; OCC; boxboard; waxboard 
HDPE 



Concrete and asphalt 



Most grades of paper (excluding UJ^ 



PS; glass containers; aluminum cans; 
steel cans; ONP; organic waste; all 
types of paper 

Glass; fine paper, OCC; UNh pnmary 
cell batteries from IC&I (no auto 
batteries); post industrial plastics 
(HOPE, LDPE, ABS. PET, EVA, 

HIPS) ^ 

hinclpal resins. LDPfc and HDPfc tUms 



Rubber 

Plastic laminated aluminum foils; bare 

and lacquered aluminum foil 



and lacquered aluminum foil 

Off road vehicle inner tubes; truck inner 



tubes; farm inner tubes 
Plastic scrap 



Plastic scrap 
Asphalt aiidl 



concrete 



T 



T 
T 



1 1 



it 

I 



I 



-mz 



w 



IT 



w 



w 



w 



97 

w 









TUT 






Fibre Management (jroup 



Fibre Resource Recovery Corp. 



Fluid Management Services Inc. 



Foodpaih 

Frank Wills. Hog Fanner 



Full Recovery Recyclers Inc. 
Fully Integrated Recycling Systems 



G &(} Recycling 

G & R Automotive Machine Shop 



Galvan Plastics 



Genor Recycling Services Ltd. 



Goodwill Industries of Toronto 



Graham Brothers Construction 



The Grease Man 



The Green Office 



Business 1 ype 



Broker, hauler, Consultant; 
Importcr/Exponcr, End-user, 
Processor 



Broker, Hauler; Importer/Exporter; 



Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Hauler; Food bank 
End-user 



Hauler; End-user 



Processor 



MRF - fme papcr 
Broker, Hauler; Processor 



Broker, Hauler; Processor 



Broker, Consultant; 
Importer/Exporter; Hauler, 
Processor 



Hauler; Processor, Retailer 



f*rocessor 



Hauler; Processor, End-user 



Hauler; Processor 



Materials 



t^ne paper; 5CC; ONP; <!iP(L); kral't; 
boxboard; magazines; phone books; 
envelopes; glossy paper, window 
envelopes 

Fine paper; kraft; OCC; UNF; CPU; 
boxboard; magazines; phone books; 
envelopes; glossy paper, all recyclable 
paper products 



industrial oils and other liquid wastes; 
solvents; cutting fluids and washes 
Perishable (some) and non-perishable 
food; off-spec personal care items, etc. 
Food and some organic 
materials/scraps, including dairy and 

bakery fay-products 

Food waste; sawdust 



Most plastics 
Fine paper; OCC 



Ferrous and non-ferrous metals; oil; 
antifreeze; freon; motor vehicle 

batteries 

f P; LbPE; H1)P£; ^ LLbt'E; K; 

ABS; indusQ-ial waste 

Boxboard; CX:C; fme paper. urJP; 
aluminum and steel cans; PET; mixed 
rigid plastics; phone books; kraft paper, 
all grad of paper; assorted glass 

containers „— n 

Clothing; books; small appliances; 

furniture, etc. 

Asphalt, concrete and clean fill 



Waste grease _ 

Food and beverage bottles and jars; 
food and beverage cans; computer 
printouts; mixed office paper, ONP; 
magazines; phone books; FUDPE; PET; 
PS 



:|iilllls 



T 
T 



I* 



'^ 5 



I 



?3 




"tCT" 



"TOT 



TW 



"TUS" 






TTT 



TTT 



TTT 



TTT 



TTT 
TTT 



TTT 



TIT 



TT9 



■RT 
TTT 



HT 



TIT 



tiiDw kichinc 



H. HcIIer & Co. InC. 



H. Salb International 



Handy and Harman of Canada Ltd. 



Hanna Paper Fibres Lf^T 
Hailcow Aggregates and Recycling 



Hairison disposal 



Hevmet Recovery 



HGC Management Inc. 



High Park Scrap Metals" 
Hi-Tech Cleaners 



Hy-Hope Farm 



« 



I.G. Machine & Fibres 



Industrial Chemical Refiners 



lanco Enviro Tech Inc. 
Industrial Chemical Refiners 



Innovative New Ideas (I.N.J) 



Intcrmetco Ltd. 



International Business Supplies 
(IBS) 



Bi^nncssTfpe 



-user 



Broker, Processor, 
1 mporter/Exporter 



End -user; Importer/Exporter, 

Processor 

End-user; Processor 



Hauler, Processor 



Processor 



Broker, Processor 
Processor; Recyclinj 



lin g 

Hauler, Processor; Consultant; 
Broker 



Hauler; Processor 
Processor 



End-user, Processor 
End- user 



Processor, Hauler 



Processor; Consultant" 



Processor; Hauler 



Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



rocessor 



Materials 



Sawdust and wood chips; food 
(processing) and other organic 
materials; manures; paper mill and 
industrial sludges; (JCC 



HbPE; LDPfi; PP; I'S; vinyl; P£t 



Used clothing; cotton and synthetic 
textiles 



Air 



prec 



ious metals 



Fine paper, books 

Ferrous and non-ferrous metals; (X)C; 
tires; pallets and nwst wood; all non- 
hazardous mixed IC&I and C&D waste, 
including drywall and vinyl drywall; 
concrete 



AH types 

Copper; nickel; zinc" 



Fine paper, box board; ONP; OCC; 
glass containers; PET; HDPE; PS; 
plastic film; food and beverage cans 
Ferrous and non-ferrous metals 



Laser toner cartridges 



Food waste" 

OCC, wood chips, ONP, office and 

mixed paper 

All chlonnated solvents and freon 



Hbt>E;Ab*!;r»i' 



All chlorinated solvents and freotT 



Toner cartridges; computers 
Ferrous and non-ferrous metals; white 



loods 






agnetic recording media; computer 
tape; VHS/Beta tapes; diskettes; data 
cartridges and cassettes; CD's; vinyl 
records 



^ 5 



5 



I 



ilmlliiiii-ii.i 



W 



T5r 



w 



TW 






TIT 



VST 



nr 



TW 






XTF 



TW.&S. Ferrous Lt 



J&F Waste 



J.C. Waste Management 1990 Inc. 



Jireh Recycling Services Ltd. 
Joe's Recycling 



Jubil Materials Management 

Service 

K & K Plastics 









l^aiiler; Processor, bnd-user. 
Broken Importer/Exporter; 
Consultant 




Hauler, Processor 



Broker, Consultant; Hauler; 

Processor 

Processor 



Hauler; Processor, Consultant 



Asphalt for fill; car & industri 



batteries; steel drums; ferrous and non- 
ferrous scrap metals; computer 



equipment 

FP; mixed paper; ONP; glossy stock; 
organics; glass containers; aluminum 
cans; steel cans; CXTC; clean fill; 
drywall; most plastics; tires; skids; 

wood 

Boxboard; OCC; mixed paper; ONP 



Kantal Metals 



Kord Products Ltd. 



Laidlaw Environmental Services 

Ltd. 

Laidlaw Waste Systems 



Laser Cartridge Services Inc. 



Laser Charge 

Laser Recharge Canada 



Processor 
Processor 



Hauler; Ptocessor. 
Importer/Exporter 



Broker, Processor 
Processor 



Broker, Hauler; importcr/Exponer, 



Processor 



Processor; Hauler 



End- user; Hauler, Processor 



Hauler; Processor; End-user 



Uncontaminated wood waste 
Glass containers; aluminum cans; OCC; 
ONP; fine and mixed paper; PS; PVC; 
rigid polystyrene; organics (and kitchen 
grease); tires; wood; computer 

equipment; textiles 

Wood pallets, products and skids, select 



scrap 

PPT; acrylic; lexon; polycarbon; PVC 



Non-feriDus and precious metals from 
electronic equipment (computers); 
telecommunications equipment; wires 

from industry 

ONP; waxea cup stock and other waxed 

non-comigated caitcwis 

Non- hazardous solid industrial waste; 

liquid industrial and hazardous waste 

Magazines (shredded and baled); #8 

grade ONP (baled); all grades of paper, 

container glass; ferrous and non-feirous 

metals; drywall; wood; OCC; PET; 

HOPE; PS; LDPE 

All laser printer cartridges and PC! 

copier toner cartridges 

Laser toner cartridges" 



Laser printer cartridges and photo 
copier cartridges 



2 



la, 

l| 



T5r 






141 



■TO" 















IW 



1ST 



IW 



T35" 



IW 






lOM^ 



Laser kechargers of Canada 



Laser Save 



LaserAee 

Lascrfiil Cartridge CofpT 



Lascmetworks 



Lennox Drum Ltd. 



Luzza International Livestock 

Corp. 

L.W. Sanderson and Sons Cartage 
Ltd. 



: Bmimi^'fyP^r 



llauler; Processor 



End-user; Hauler. Processor 



End-user; Hauler, Processor 
Broken Processor 



Hauler; Processor, End-user 
Hauler; Processor, End-user 



MacLcan Hunter Canadian 
Publishing 



Malecki Drum Inc.' 
Mammone Disposal' 



Management Boardi Secretarial 
(located at Ontario Science Centre) 
Maple Paying Products L td. 



Maratek Environmental Inc. 



Margold Industries 



Menunier Rccyclablcs 



Merchandise Recovery Services 
Inc. 



Metal Recovery Industries Inc. 
(MRl) 



Metro Salvage; Consolidated 
Recycling Inc. 



End-user 
Hauler; Processor 



Processor 



Processor 

In-vessel composting facility" 



In-vcssel comix>sting facility 



Processor 

Hauler; Processor 



Broker, Processor 



H 



auler; 



Pioc 



essor 



Hauler; Processor, fexporter 



Processor; Broker, End-user; 
Importer/Exporter, Consultant; 
Hauler 



Hauler; Processor, Consultant; 
Broker, Importer/Exporter 



MaterMili 



Laser toner cailndgcs; copier toner 
cartridges; laser printers and parts; 
photo copiers and parts 



Laser toner cartridges 



Laser toner caitridgeT 



Laser toner cartridges 



Laser toner cartridges 



Steel and plastic d^ms and pails; large 



tote tanks 



Wood shavings 



Boxboard; OCC; ONP; fine paper; 
drywall; tires; cans; glass; metals 
including appliances; PS 



Magazines 



Steel and plastic drums (HDPET 



IC&I food and wood waste 



IC&I food waste 



Asphalt and concrete 

Printing and photographic waste 

chemicals; photographic films 

All non-ferrous and ferrous scrap metal; 
photographic film and chemical waste; 
lead and aluminum plates (printing 
industry); steel; copper; brass 
Lead; wire; aluminum; nickel; steel; 
brass; copper; bronze; stainless steel; 
boxboard; ONP; OCC; CPO; FP 



White goods 



Steel and aluminum cans; metal 
sludges; steel beams; aluminum sheet; 

drums; all metals 

Ferrous and non-ferrous metals; 
batteries; clean and dry drums 



Rtitnnot 



T 

T 



T 
T 



I.. 

II 









I 



-K 



-w 



IW 



IW 



IW 



lET 



■RT 



"RT 






1^ 









TFT 



jUtpVMjNMnt' 



Metro Waste Paper kccovery 



The Metropolitan Toronto and 
Region Conservation Authority 

(MTRCA) 

Miller Waste Systems 



Mississauga Paper FibreT 



MKG Cartridge Rctill Systems 



Mongke Resources Capital Ltd. 



Mosaic Chemical CorpT 



Mr. Pallet IncT 
National Rubber 



Neil R. Davis Faims Ltd. 



Newcastle Recycling Ltd. 
Newcastle Salvage 



Newmarket Iron and Metal 

Company Ltd. 

New West Gypsum Ontario Inc. 



Nickel Cadmium Recycling" 



BttsiiwB ljn>c 



Consultant; Exponcr/l[mport«r 
Hauler; Processor, Broker 



Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Broker, Consultant; End- user, 
Importer/Exporter, Hauler; 
Processor 



Hauler; Processor 
Processor; some recycling 



Processor 



Processor 
Processor; End-user 



H 



auler 



Broker, Hauler; Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Processor 



Processor 



Processor 



Materials. 



Fine paper; mixed orifice paper, ()H¥, 
OCC; phone books; glass; metals; cans; 
food and organic materials; polystyrene 

and others; wooden pallets 

Clean concrete, asphalt and brick 



Clean concrete and rubble; clean 
drywall; OCC; clean wood; glass food 
and beverage containers; metal cans; 
plastics; ONP; mixed office paper; 
HOPE; LPPE; PE; PET; PS 
High grade office waste paper; fine 
paper; printer's scrap; books 



Toner cartridges 



Commercial and industrial solid non- 
hazardous waste processing 

Waste oil; motor oil; oily water 



Waste oil; motor oil; oily watei 
Used wood pallets and skids 



Uncured rubber waste; tires; tire crumb 
and fabric 



Dry waste food and organic materials 
(including dairy products); produce; 

wood shavings and sawdust 

Ferrous and non-ferrous metals; used 
cars; car parts; batteries; drums 
Concrete, asphalt, rubble, clean fill, 
metal, wood, asphalt shingles, fuel 

storage tanks 

Ferrous and non-ferrous metals, also 

scrap cars and trucks 

tJrywaU; all types of vinylboard; 
painted board; wallboard not 

contaminated with lead 

Nickel cadmium batteries 






i> 






c<i C. 



2, & 

•^ 5 

I? 
ll 



us: 



nr 



TtT" 
TTT" 



TTT 



nr 



IW 



■rer 






-mr 



TFT 






Norjotin Transfer Systems 



Nu-Plast 



O.C. Liquid Waste Haulers oi 

Ontario Ltd. . 

O & E Farms Ltd. 



Oak-Mississauga Cartons & 



Shipping Supplies Co. Lt d. 
OLPE Tymc Pallets Ltd. 



Ontario Sawdust Supply Ltd. 



Pacific Packaging Products Ltd. 
Paper Fibres Inc. 



Paramount Rubber Recycling lnc7 
Parma Plastics Inc. 



Peel Bio Conversion IncT 



Peel Scrap Metal RecyclinBLul. 
Pctrcx Waste Managcnicnt Ltd. 



Philip Environmental tnc. 



Phoenix Fiberglass inc. 
Plast-Ex International Inc. 



Plasticycle Inc. 



Budncts ;i>||»e 



Processor, Hauler, 
Importer/Exponcr 



Hauler, Processor 



Hauler; Processor 

Hauler; Processor, End-user 



Hauler; Processor 

Hauler; processor, end-user 



Material! 



OCC; ONP; organics; steel and 
aluminum; drywall; all container glass; 

PET; tires; pallets and wood 

PS; ABS; PC; LDp£; MbPE; HUPt; 



PP 



Liquid and Solid wastes 



Liquid or solid food by-products 
including bakery waste, soups, produce, 

meats, canned dog food 

OCC; FP; boxboard 



Hauler; Processor, fcnd-uscr. 

Consultant; Broker 

Broker, importer/Exporter; Hauler; 

Processor 

Broker, Consultant; Hauler; 
Importer/Exporter; Processor 
Haulen Processor 



Consultant: Processor 
In-vessel composting facility 



ftocessor 

Hauler; Processor 



Hauler; Processor, Consultant; 

Broker, End- user 

Processor; End- user 



Hauler; Pnxessor, 
Importer/Exporter 
Hauler, Processor 



Wood pallets; clean/uncontaminated 



wood 

Softwood and hardwood sawdust; 



shavings and wood chips 

Baled OCC; corrugated waste; office 
paper; hard & soft cover books 
Office records; printer's waste; CPU 



R ubber; tires 
Flexible PVC" 



IC&I food waste 



Ferrous and non-fenous scrap metals 
C&D debns; Blue Box recyclablcs; 
mixed steel; all aluminum including 
windows; wood; bathtubs; doors; clean 
reinforced concrete; clean loads of 

asphalt; clean fill; OCC 

All materials 



Fibreglass; cured thermoset reinforced 

plastic , 

All plastics; foam reduction equipment 



LDPE; LLoPfe; HDPE; PE 



i-JRfinniiH^ 



mm 



mmiM 



T 



Co e. 

l| 

I? 
>» s. 



'^ 5 

P 

I 




■w 



1^ 



■RT 



■w 



1^ 



IW 



'W 



■SRT 



"sjr 



-wr 



1ST 



IDT" 
■SJT 



"SSS" 



107" 



Posner Metals 



Pre-Fab Cushion Products 



Proshitd S«:urity 

Prowaste - BFI (Mississauga) 



Quccnsway Recycling Corp 



QUNO Recycling Corporation 
(Etobicoke) 



QUNO Recycling COTporauon 
(Toronto) 



RT. Recycling Inc. 

R12Cycles Computers and Office 

Centre 



Raylex Electiica] Distributors 
RCR International !r 



inc. 



Really Green Inc. 



Reclamation Services 
Recovery Technologies Inc. 



Recycle Canada 



Recycle Trade Inc. 
Recycle-It-Canada 



Hauler; Broker; Importer/Exporter; 



Processor 

Hauler; PiDcessor 



Hauler; Processor 



Processor 

Processor 



Hauler, Broker, Processor 
Broker. End- user, Processor 



Processor 



Processor 



Processor; Importer/Exporter 
Hauler, Processor 



Processor ' 
Hauler; Processor 



Broker, Consultant; Processor 



Processor; Hauler 



Hauler. Processor 
Hauler Processor 



WTm 

PET; PP; Noryel 



Ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal; 
lead acid batteries; drums; glass 
PE foam ■ 



All paper 

OC C, wood, fme pa ^ 



a per 
austr 



Commercial and industrial solid non- 
hazardous waste 

Boxboard; OCC; all grades of paper; 
01^ 



All grades paper; OCC; ONF; hP; 
aluminum and steel beverage/food cans; 
cores from paper rolls ■ 



— TI 



"W55d 

Computers; computer monitors; 
computer printers; fax machines; 
VCRs; stereos, etc. 
Street and i ndustrial lighting lamps 

-TexiB^rvraf-^ 



Pallet wood; any type of wood 
including ciit-offs; heavy paper tubing 
Hydraulic oils; certain metal wo 



'orking 

lubes . 

Thermoplastics; thermoset plastic and 

rubber scrap inc luding tires 

23--Ht>PE; 4-LbPE;1>ET; 6-K; PVC; 
ait grades of paper. OCC; ONP; glass; 
aluminum cans; steel cans; ferrous and 
non-ferrous sawdust; particle board 
Ferrous and non-feirous metals 



FP; mixed paper; OCC; pop cans; glass 
bottles ., 



>• . 
J' 

.5' 
•» s. 



I 



UKi 



■w 






TTT 



TIT 
7TT 



7TT 
7TT 



ITT 



TTT 



7!^ 

■55?r 



i5r 



i5r 



The kccycler Inc 




Refrigerant Recoyeiy Services 
Regal Home Products Inc. 



Residue North 

Retzer Sawdust Services 



The Reuse Centre 



Resouicc Plasti cs Corp^ 



Rcurc Building Centre 



Roger Larue Enterprises Ltd. 



Rosen Industries Ltd. 
Rubbertech Salvage Ltd. 



Rotasay 

S. Cronish and Son Ltd 



Safeguard Shredding Inc. 
Safety & Klccn Canada inc. 



The Salvation Army 



Business t^Iif 



Broken Consultant; Hauler; 
Processor 



Broker, Processor 
Processor. End-user 



Processor 



Resell 



er 



Processor; importer/exporter 
Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Processor; broker; 
importer/exporter 
Hauler; Processor, 
Importer/Exporter 



Hauler; processor 
Hauler, Processor 



Processor 

Hauler; processor, end-user 



End- user 



Materials 



ill 



Aluminum & steel cans; FP; ONt*; ail 
grades of paper; boxboard; OCC; 
magazines; glass containers; organic 
food waste; leaves and yard waste; 
general ytchen scraps; HDPE; HDPE 
film; LDPE' LDPE film; PS; PP; grease 
Freon; all types of retrigerant recovery 



Hexible PVC"oHT7 



Cuttings from textile factories; mattress 
scrap ticking with foam; polyurethanc 
foarn scrap 



Sawdust and shavings, any wood waste 
Household appliances; tools; building 
supplies; office equipment; office 

suppli es: plumbing fixtures, etc. 

T>P;HbPE;Lbt>fi;LLPPti 



Lumber; plywood; paneling; cabinets; 
windows; doors; floor coverings; 
plumbing fixtures and supplies; 
electrical fixtures and supplies; 

supplies; hardware 

Clear and coloured glass; tin; 
aluminum; FP; OCC; ONP; CPO; 
boxboard; magazines; phone books; 
envelopes; glossy paper, krafi; PET 



Cullct; plate glass; scrap metals 
Tires 



Animal 



troducts; food waste; grease 
non-ferrous metals 



S 

Ferrous and i 

CPO; mixed paper 

Waste oils; solvents; used glycel; oil 

filters \ 

New and used clothing; furniture; small 
appliances; refrigerators 



mm-'--'-' ----'--■-'■ '■ 



T 



bl 
>- 

o S. 

ll 
1? 



I 



a 



»^si |^iiM:=m;:^sil^^» 



TW 



i5r 



i5r 



ITT 



■55r 



IW 



"23C" 

i3r 



i5r 

153" 



■55r 



155" 

i5r' 

157~ 



158" 



IW 



1^ 



Sandhill Water Supply and 
Disposal 




Sanexen Environmental Services 
Inc. 



Scott's Composting Fann 



Second Harvest 



Secural Datashred Inc. 



Security Document Shredding Inc.' 
Seeley & Ainill Aggregates Ltd. 



beeiey a Am 
ShrcaExpres 



Shred-It Canada Corp. Ltd. 
Simcoc Plastics Ltd. 



Society of St. Vincent de Paul 



Soil Recycling Company 



G. Sol way and Sons Ltd. 
Sterling Recycling LtdT 



SuperiOT Crawfora Sand and 
Gravel 



Superior Pallet Service Ltd. 
Surplus Refrigeration 



Broker, Hauler, 



Processor 
Processor 



Hauler; Broker 



Broker, Consultant; Hauler; 
Processor 



Hauler; Processor 
Processor; Importer/Exporter 



Processor 
Hauler; Processor 



Broker, Hauler; Processor; 
Importer/Exporter 



Hauler; Processor 
Processor 



Processor 
Hauler; Processor 



Processor 



Hauler; Processor, Broker, 

Consultant 

Processor, Broker, End- user. 

Consultant; Importer/Exporter, 

Hauler 



Clear and coloured glass; metal cans; 

OCC;ONP;PET 

PCB contaminated mineral oil; 

dielectric fluid and PCB contaminated 

electrical equipment 

Clean sawdust and wood; yard waste; 
fhjii and vegetables; straw; paper, 
brush; leaves; grass 
Perishable including packaged, or 
canned foods for human consumption 
Mixed office paper, ONP; aluminum 
and steel beverage cans; clear and 

coloured glass containeis; OCC 

FP; cans; glass; OCC 



Asphalt and concrete 

FP; kraft; CX:C; CPU; magazines; 

books; glossy paper 

Mixed office papen OCC; ONP; glass; 

metals 

AbS; K:; Ht>l>E; LbM; LLbf»E; 
MDPE; PS; PP; SAN; PVC; PET; 

HIPS; acTvlic 

Clothing; Moks; small appliances; 

furniture and household goods 

Removes hydrocarbcms rrom soil - 

landfill cover ______ 

Ferrous and non-ferrous metals; white 



goods 

H DPE drums; pails and bottles 



Inert fill; broken concrete 



Wood pallets; skids; lumber 



Commercial/Industrial refrigeration and 
air conditioning equipment; tin; 
aluminum; copper; wood 



T 



Ik. 



•^ 5 



p 



1 

I 



'n^. 



-w 



-wr 



1^ 



14T 



1^ 



i3r 



1^ 



15T 



i?r 



i5r 



i5r 



75T 



15T 



155" 



Tempest technologies inc 



Terra Plastics Recycling Inc. 



rhennoftiction Waste Recycling 
Inc. 



3R Laser Supply Inc. 
TonoUi Canada Ltd. 



The Toronto Harbour 
Commissioners 



Toronto Salt and Chemicals 
Toronto Wood Recovery 



Tower/Pak-Man Disposal Services 



Trcvco Ltd. - Covert Inc. 



Turtle Island Paper Co. 



U-Pak Disposals Ltd. 



Universal Drum 
Waste Recycling Inc. 



Wastewise - Georgetown 
Waxman Recycling Industries Ltd. 






Hauler; t>roccsson Ind-uscr | Computer cartridges, cartridges from 

laser printers, etc. 



Processor 



Processor; Consultant 



Hauler; Processor, Remanufacturer 
Processor 



End-user; lakefill operator 



Hauler; Processor 



Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Processor; Hauler 



Broker, Pnxressor, Hnd-User, 
Hauler 



Hauler; Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Processor 



Community Resource Centre 



Hauler; Processor, ^nd-user. 
Broker, Importer/Exporter 



Materiati 




rpr 



HDPE; LPPE; used oil bottles 
Passenger tires 



Laser toner cartridges; cartridge ribbons 

Lead/acid batteries 

Clean fill; concrete; clean & mixed 

nibble; asphalt; brick; shale 

Hardwood sawdust 

Most wood; pallets; particle board; 

plywood 

Asphalt, concrete, clean fill; all 
drywall; glass food and beverage 
containers; ferrous and non-ferrous 
metal; all grades paper; CXTC; most 

wood 

Mixed paper; OCC; magazines; phone 
books; metal cans; glass bottles; PET; 
HDPE; LPPE; PVC; PP; PS 
PET; PS; HDPE; pickle pails; plasuc 
drums; organics; skids; FP, glass 
bottles; aluminum cans; steel cans; 
OCC; ONP; laser cartridges; paper and 
paper cups; wood; shrink wrap; stretch 
wrap; plastic film; polystyrene 
Food waste; all grades of paper; OCC; 

sawdust; wood; metals; PS 

Steel and plastic drums 

OCC; ONP; boxboard; high grades 

mix; office paper fibres; residential 

paper fibres 

Collection & sale of household and 



commercial materials 



Ferrous metal; non-fenrous metal; white 
fioods; scrap metal 



In 
> 



IS 

I? 
I 



BT 



W 



55r 



1ST 



wnmrmfmmm 




ivcraion Inc. 

Wiper Pro Inc. 
Wiseman Brothers 



Wolfe Iron and MetaJ Ltd. 
Wood Waste Solutions of Canada 



Woodbridge f'allEtlia: 



ssor; (Consultant: End-UseT 
Hauler Processor 



Processor 



Hauler; Processor 



Broker, Importer/Exporter; Hauler; 
Processor 



Broker, Hauler; Processor 




A t) wood 
othing; fafaic; paper towelling 
sed clothing; textile clippings; i 



UsSJ 



Ferrous metal; non-fenx>us metal 
All wood scrap including particle 
lx)anl; sawdust; plywood; pallets 



rags 



Wood paUcts 



References: 

1 Ontario Recycling Resourccbook, S«:ondary Material Markets Directory, Recycling Council of Ontario. Published by 
Southam Information and Technology Group, 1993 

2 Memo to RIS from MOEE, "Additional Information from WRO", Feteuary 15. 1994 

3 Information on 3Rs Facilities in the GTA, Table received from, MOEE. June 10, 1 993 

Notes: 

Unless otherwise indicated, all companies listed service the GTA (according to the RCO directory) 






ix IS. 



ll 



Ministry cf Envtronmeiit and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Anaiyiis — Service Technical Appe/uiix 



GREATER TORONTO AREA 
PRIVATE SECTOR RECYCLER'S SURVEY 



Company, 



Contact Name 



Phone # Date: 



I* How many accounts does your company provide recycling collection and 
processing services in the industrial /commercial & institutional (IC&I) 
sector (i.e. non-residential) in the GTA? 



ii Of these, how many are multi-material accounts (i.e. collecting more than 
one material)? 



$. How much material (in tonnes) did your company handle from the GTA 
in 1993? 



4i How many total accoimts are projected for 1994? 



5. What material does your company usually collect from IC&I accounts (e.g. 
office paper, cardboard, wood, cans, glass etc.)? 



6. Does your company process recydables (i.e. sort, bale, ship to market) and 
if so, what materials? 



May 1994 Page 01-25 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Ri Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 



7. Does 



your company, or parent company, haul waste to landfill /transfer 
stations? 



8. What percentage of your recycling business is in the Greater Toronto Area 
(Halton, Peel, Metro Toronto, York or Durham)? Is your business 
concentrated in any particular area? 



9. How many employees does your business employ (part and full-time)? 



10. Does your company operate a fleet of collection vehicles? If so how 
many? 



1 1 . Have the recently announced Ministry of the Environment requirements 
for IC&I establishments to conduct waste audits and implement source 
separation programs affected your business? Do you expect this to change 
in the future? 



12. Has your business been impacted by waste exports? 



13. Do you think reduced tipping fees in the GTA will have any impact on 
your business? 



14. Are you experiencing any problems with any of the end markets for 
materials in which you handling? 



Please Return to: Gordon Day, RIS Ltd - Phone (480-2420) Fax (480-2419) 

May 1994 ■ ■ Page 01-26 



Muiatry of Enviroiunent and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis — Service Technical Appendix 




Ministry 

ottha 

Environment 



Ontano and Eiwgy 



Minist6ra 

de 

I'Environnsmant 

«ttdef&Migie 



FOCAL PLANNMQ AND 
INFORUATIQN MANAlQEIIENT BRANCH 



I3t «. CUir AMnu* WMI 

SiaMWO 

ToronAOnuno 

M4Vm 



ToianwiOnMM) 
•MV1P9 



May 19, 1993 



To whom it may concern: 

Pleaae accept this letter of introduction for Resource 
integration Syatema (RIS) Ltd: which is working on behalf of 
the Ministry of. BnvironiMht and Energy on a study of the 
waste diversion potential and socio-economic impact of the 
3Rs within the Greater Toronto Area. 

As part of this study wa are -gathering the most recant 
information available f ron various sources . We «ould^ 
appreciate your cooperation in our study and would li)ce to 
assure you that all infonaation. that 'you will provide will be 
amalgamated with other data collected in such a manner that 
proprietary information will be protected. 



Should you have any questions, please feel fr^ to contact 
at (416) 323-4561. 



IM 



Yours sincerely, 



cw*\af*^\. 



Orna Salamon 
Technical Coordinator 
3Rs GTA Study 



May 1994 



Page 01-27 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
CTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



SCHEDULE 0-2 — SURVEYS OF IC&I WASTE DIVERSION ACTIVITIES 
IN GTA IN 1992 

General 

The purpose of this portion of the study was to collect available information on waste diversion 
initiatives in the IC&I sector in the GTA. Data on waste generation was allocated to ten major 
industrial/comiTwrcial sectors, as detailed in Chapter 11, therefore industrial/commercial 
establishments and associations were surveyed according to each of these ten sectors. The ten 
major sectors were: 

1. Primary 

2. Manufacturing 

3. Construction 

4. Transportation/Communication/Utilities 

5. Wholesale 

6. Retail 

7 . Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 

8. Non-Commercial Services (health care and education) 

9 . Commercial Services 

10. Public Administration (incl. government) 

Information was gathered from published articles, documented success stories and previously 
produced studies. The Study Team carried out telephone surveys in February and March 1993 
of IC&I associations representing each industry group, as well as individual generators and 
staff at each GTA Region. 

GTA Regions/Municipalities 

Most of the GTA municipalities have been unable to provide accurate figures on quantities of 
IC&I waste being diverted, for the following reasons: 

• the number of IC&I establishments in any given Region or municipality is so large 
that it is impossible to monitor them all; 

• the majority of IC&I waste is collected by a large number of private haulers which 
has made accurate data collection difficult; 

• haulers have not provided municipalities with figures on IC&I waste types or 
quantities being collected in their Regions; 

• a large portion of IC&I waste has been exported to the U.S. since 1991, and 
accurate figures on amounts arc difficult to obtain. 

All Regions, with the exception of York, have established extensive programs to assist the 
IC&I sector with implementation of 3Rs programs and identification of markets for recyclable 
materials. Literature, posters and videos are provided. Advisors are available to assist 
companies with waste audits and developing reduction programs. Each Region publishes a 
directory of recyclers within their region to help IC&l operations identify markets for 
recyclable materials. 

Diversion figures and specific information reported by the individual Regions are presented 
below. 



May 1994 Page 02-1 



Mimstry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The Region of Durham 

The following 1992 annual waste diversion figures, reported by the Region of Durham, were 
obtained by doubling reported diverted quantities between Jan. 1 - June 30, 1992: 

• fine paper, used beverage containers, 581 tonnes (0.2%) 
andONP 

• company reported diversion 48,306 tonnes (14.9%) 

The Region operates a recycling center which reported receiving the following amounts of 
IC&I waste in 1992: 



Fine Paper 


228 tonnes 


(1.1%) 


Cardboard 


161 tonnes 


(0.8%) 


Mixed (paper, glass, metal) 


138 tonnes 


(0.7%) 



The Region also conducted a survey to determine how many companies would require 
assistance. Nine percent responded and of those companies, 70% indicated an interest in 
establishing programs (Collis, 1993). 

The Region of Halton 

The Region of Halton has little information on IC&I waste diversion activities, and the majority 
of IC&I waste from the Region is presently exported. No figures on exported quantities are 
available. The Region's MRF accepted 2,684 tonnes of caidboard from the IC&I sector in 
1992 (Smith, 1993). 

It is estimated that 13,000 - 20,000 tonnes of waste was diverted by the IC&I sectors in the 
Region of Halton in 1990 (Smith, 1993). 

The Region's "Waste Wise" program assists companies with locating markets for recyclable 
materials and provides advisory services to numerous businesses on developing 3Rs 
programs. Since its inception in 1990, the program has led to the diversion of 59 tonnes of 
paper, 40 tonnes of reusable appliances, tools and furniture, 8 tonnes of used clothing and 1 
tonne of plastic. 

The Region of Peel 

The Region of Peel estimated that in 1990, waste diverted from landfill was 1 18,101 tonnes, or 
25% of IC&I waste generated ( Morgan -Fraser, 1993). It is estimated 128,855 tonnes were 
diverted in 1990 (MacLaren Engineers, 1991), 

The Region's landfills took in 227,301 tonnes of IC&I waste in 1991 and it is estimated 
53,125 tonnes were exported for disposal (Morgan-Fraser, 1993). From programs such as 
material bans at landfill, the Region's waste exchange, waste assessments, the clean fill referral 
service and an approximate survey of recyclers and haulers conducted in 1991, the Region 
estimated that approximately 369,302 tonnes were diverted from landfill in 1991 (Morgan- 
Fraser, 1993). This represents a 57% waste diversion rate. 

The Region expressed corkcem that estimates for both years are not reliable. Included in these 
quantities is an estimate of exported waste. In addition, the Region's recyclers could only 
provide estimates as to the percentage of the material they process that actually comes from 
within the Region. Finally, many recyclers. or haulers contacted did not provide the 
information requested. At best, the survey is a partial sampling (Morgan-Fraser, 1993). 

May 1994 Page 02-2 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



The Region extensively promotes IC&I diversion. Programs include: a general recycling 
hotline that also accepts IC&I questions; an annual day-long seminar, including presentations 
and awards for outstanding achievements in waste reduction (to encourage IC&I waste 
reduction); publishing a recycling markets directory; liasing with industry associations to 
promote 3Rs programs; and, providing research and development assistance for companies 
with new waste r^uction initiatives. 

One hundred and forty-seven waste audits were performed by Regional staff by 1991, in 
addition to visits advising companies on the 3Rs. Approximately 10,000 posters were 
distributed to the IC&I sector to encourage businesses to become environmentally-friendly. 
While Peel Region advertises its own 3Rs programs, education programs in the schools are 
conducted with the help of a Joint Committee for the Environment of the Separate and Public 
Boards of Education of Peel. 

Metropolitan Toronto 

The estimated Metro Toronto IC&l diversion, excluding public facilities, was 219,543 tonnes 
for 1990. This amount was not necessarily recycled, however, and could have been exported 
(MacLaren Engineers , 1 99 1 ) . 

Metro Works reported that in 1992. 200.015 tonnes of IC&I waste was landfiUed. Metro has 
also estimated that between 500,000 and 900,000 tonnes have been exported from Metro for 
disposal (Metro Works Dept., 1993). 

1992 waste diversion totals and 1993 projections for Metro offices, as well as general IC&I 
soil recycling, are presented in Table 0-2. 1 . 

Table 0-2.1 
Metro Toronto Waste Diversion Totals 



Wa$te Div€r$i oa Frogram 



Agencies, Boards, Commissions and , 
Metro Departments 

Soil Recycling* 



Diversion 



8.300 
56,600 



Diversioti 



10,000 
75,000 



'■Assumed majority of soil originates from IC&I sites 



The City of Toronto Public Worics department indicated that: 

• in the fall of 1991 , material recovery services began in 2,500 restaurants and 6,000 
retail stores; ^^ 

• paper recovered from City operations in 1991 increased by almost 50% over 1990, 
largely due to extension of program to all city offices; 

• developers submitted 83 waste reduction and material recovery plans in 1991, 
bringing to 168 the number of new plans approved for new developments since 
1988. When these pToperties are in full operation, they will have average diversion 
rates of 40% and will divert about 22,000 tonnes per year from landfill. This is not 
diversion of existing quantities of generated waste (City of Toronto, 1992). 



May 1994 



Page 02-3 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



City of Torwito Public Works and the Environment Department is responsible for the collection 
of approximately 75,000 tonnes/year of IC&I waste, and 6,200 tonnes/year of IC&I recyclable 
materials, principally from institutions, restaurants and small commercial establishments, 
which is delivered to Metropolitan Toronto facilities. Approximately 3,000 tonnes/year of 
IC&I fibre is also delivered to a private recycling facihty (Vardin, 1994). 

Other informadon on general initiatives undertaken by Metro in the IC&I sector are as follows: 

Metro council approved the establishment of depots at selected facilities to receive source 
separated recycled materials including OCC, glass, cans, plastic, newspapers, telephone 
books, drywall, leaves, yard waste, tires, scrap metal, wood, and office paper for small 
companies unable to arrange collection by private recycling companies (MacLaren Engineers, 
1991). 

Over 300 waste audits were conducted in 1990. Metro Toronto also produced a guide to 
develop a commercial and industrial waste reduction and recycling plan; a market directory of 
facilities recycling banned materials; an office paper recycling guide; and an educational kit for 
schools. Metro also set up an IC&I information hotiine which handled 6,000 inquiries in 1991 
(MOEE, WRO, 1992). Discussions with Metro have revealed that the hotiine is now receiving 
only 400 calls per month (Garland, 1993). 

Table 0-2.2 provides a breakdown of IC&l materials recovered in City of Toronto municipal 
recycling programs: 

Table 0-2.2 

Material Recovery in City of Toronto Recycling Programs 

(Confidential Source) 



m^pi^ 


Materials 

emitted 


Quantities (metric tonnes} ] 


I jProfifiiln 


ins 


i589 


1990 


1991 


c!iommercial 


Corrugated 


141 


1,060 


\M 


1,855 


(Retail stores. 


Cardboard 










restaurants 


Glass bottles and jars 


83 


679 


811 


1,598 


etc.) 


(same as res. blue 
box) 










Fine Paper - 


Fine paper 










City Hall and 


(photocopier, laser 










other city 


pnnter paper, memo 


33 


147 


378 


561 


offices 


paper etc. ) 
Includes newspaper 




■ . 







In 1992, 38 tonnes of newspaper and OCC, and 361.3 tonnes of office paper were recovered 
fi-om City Hall and other City owned buildings (Confidential Source). 

Region of York 

York Region was unable to report any specific diversion numbers. The Region's charter 
prohibits Regional government from engaging in private sohd waste management. 



May 1994 



Page 02-4 



Ministry of Ermronment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Surveys of Associations and Generators 

This section will summarize infomiation obtained through a telephone survey of a number of 
industry associations cairied out in February and March 1993. 

Ontario Waste Management Association (OWM A) 

The association conducted a survey of members in the GTA in March, 1991. The number of 
companies responding was 22. The results indicated tiiat the number of tonnes collected was 
186,986 per month and of that total, 33,316 tonnes/mondi were recycled. That translated into 
a recycling rate of 17.8% for waste collected. The survey also asked members to estimate 
collection and recycling numbers for six months from the survey date (September '91). They 
estimated that tonnes collected and recycled would be 210,077/month and 49,934/month 
respectively, for a 23.7% recycling rate. The survey did not include information from one 
large company which operates in the GTA. However, the results are considered a good 
estimate of activity in 1 99 1 . 

In an information release in March, 1993, the association indicated that its' members handled 
80% of all IC&I waste generated in Ontario. A survey, which was to have been completed in 
June, 1993, was being conducted to determine recycling levels. The results of this survey will 
be the best source of data from the association. 

Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) 

The association is comprised of independentiy owned (not publicly traded) companies. It has 
approximately 4,(300 members in Metro Tor6nto. Total membership for tiie entire GTA could 
be as high as 8,000, although no firm figures are known. The federation represents about 10% 
of independerit businesses in Canada. Its membership is broadly based and reflects industry 
make-up in the economy as a whole. There is some higher concentration in retail and 
construction. Its members have an average of 12 employees. 

Firms with fewer than five employees account for close to 75% of all businesses in Canada. 
The amount of waste generated by one company with fewer than five employees has been 
found to be equivalent to that generated by one household. Firms with over fifty employees 
generate waste equivalent to eighty-seven households, while those with more than 500 
employees generate waste equivalent to almost 2,600 households (CFIB, 1990). 

In 1991, die federation conducted a survey of its members on environmental issues, (primarily 
solid waste management practices) and product packaging. The results reflect the views of 
2,300 responding members. While recycling was carried out to varying degrees according to 
industry, the survey found that: 

• 70% of businesses in Canada were doing some level of reuse or recycling; 

• 79% of Ontario businesses were engaged in 3Rs; 

• 1/3 of respondents indicated 3Rs have led to at least a 20% reduction in waste 
disposal; 

• 1/7 of respondents indicated reductions in excess of 50%. 

Table 0-2.3 shows the percentage of CFIB survey respondents who reported that they 
composted, reused or recycled materials in 1 99 1 . 



May 1994 Page 02-5 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Table 0-2.3 
CFIB Survey Respondents Engaged in Waste Diversion Activities in 1991 



iiiHl 



tfmmmitwmimm 



Agnculture, Forestry, Fishing 

Muling 

Manufacturing 

Construction 

Transportation 

Wholesale Trade 

Retail Trade 63 

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 

Services 



Tt5?5 
83 
89 
79 
75 
78 

33 
73 



Total 



TT 



LURA Group Reports 

In February, 1992 the LURA group released a series of reports on the following IC&I sectors: 

Construction and Demolition; 

Retail and Office; 

Manufacturing; 

Education; 

Food & Hotel Services. 

The reports were developed as a result of focus groups formed for each sector. The general 
conclusions reached were that all sectors are now addressing the waste reduction issue and are 
developing ideas. Most have not yet carried out waste audits or implemented waste reduction 
action plans at an association level. Initiatives that have been undertaken are at the individual 
company level. 

An exception, however, are the plastics and packaging industries, both of which are actively 
engaged in reduction and re-use activities as an industry. 

Key findings from the reports were: 

• Office & Retail 

— some organizations achieved up to 85% reduction in waste going to landfill 

• Food & Hotel Services 

— 60% of waste is non organic 

— 40% of waste is organic 

— composting presents an opportunity for significant diversion 

— current composting activity is minimal. 

The following sections will summarize available IC&I waste diversion data according to the ten 
categories used for the study. 



May 1994 



Page 02-6 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Research to date has not identified information on waste diversion effons in the primary sector. 

The information presented in this section is divided into activities undertaken by individual 
waste generators and industry associations. 

Information Obtained From Industry Associations 

A number of associations were contacted by phone during February and March 1993, as part 
of this study. The results are summarized below: 

Canadian Flexible Packaging Institute 

This is a small association, made up of only six members. They were not willing to divulge 
information, because it may compromise members' trade advantage. 

Canadian Mamtfacturing Association 

The association has 2200 members, 70 - 80% of which are located in Ontario. Initiatives are 
focused more on providing members with information on environmental and waste reduction 
issues, rather than encouraging or implementing 3Rs programs as an association. 

A survey was conducted in 1991 to see how many members had undertaken environmental 
initiatives. More than half of all respondents indicated that Uiey have corporate environmental 
policies and action plans in place, up from 45% in the 1990 survey (the exact number of survey 
respondents was not provided). Over 60% reported that these plans help them reduce waste 
and increase energy efficiency. Eighty-three percent of respondents reported that they conduct 
corporate environmental audits of their manufacturing processes and 73% audit their products. 
Finally, the survey indicated that over a third of respondents have active environmental 
communication plans focused on employees, shareholders and the public. No figures on waste 
diversion were requested in the survey. 

Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association 

The association operates a plant in the GTA. In 1992 it processed 864 tonnes from the IC&l 
sector, including 1 86 tonnes of foam and rigid plastics from food service establishments. 
(Ulba, CPRA, 1993). 

National Apparel Bureau/Dress Guild 

No formal industry program exists. Fabric waste is the major waste stream and has been 
recycled for some time. Therefore, recycling has not led to new waste diversion. 

Ontario Furniture Mamrfacturing Association • 

The association is down to 85 members. Wood waste, upholstery fabric, leather, foam and 
plastic wrap are the major waste streams. Members have traditionally recycled or reused these 
materials and, therefore, no new diversion has been created as a result of these initiatives. 



May 1994 . Page 02-7 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Sendee Technic<^ Appendix 



Packaging Association of Canada 

Major initiatives are being undertaken. The anK>unt of boxboard used for detergent packaging 
has been reduced by 40%. It is estimated that it could result in a 30,000 - 40,000 metric tonne 
reduction in boxboard going to landfill in Canada. The association is conducting a survey of 
NAPP adherents with Statistics Canada to determine what reduction has been achieved by 
industry. 

Paper and Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC) 

The Railways Association of Canada has approved a package weight reduction of between 5% 
and 10% for shipping purposes. This could result in potential savings of 100,000 tonnes 
nationally of corrugated containers used in shipping. 

PPEC farmed the Boxboard Task Group with OMMRI to make boxboard more recyclable and 
to increase end use markets. This is being done in conjunction with a pilot project underway in 
different Ontario municipalities to collect boxboard in curbside recycling programs. 

Society of the Plastic Industry/ Environmental Plastics Institute of Canada (SPI/EPIC) 

The association has 450 members nationally, two thirds of which operate in Ontario. It is 
made up of a variety of plastic-using industries. The association conducted an ad hoc survey 
of plastic recyclers in 1991 and found the amount recycled to be: 

— 1988 - 14,606 tonnes 

— 1990 - 31,165 tonnes 

No geographical or residential/IC&I breakdown of the information was provided. 

The association formed a Strategy Team Plastics (STP) group in 1992. Its purpose is to create 
an action plan for diversion. The group is comprised of different task groups, including IC&I 
and Reduce and Reuse groups. The action plan was to have been submitted to the MOEE in 
late 1993. 

Iirformation Obtained From Individual Generators 

This information has been obtained from case studies conducted by the Recycling Council of 
Ontario (RCO), OMMRI, MacLaren Engineers Ltd., SENES Consultants, the Study Team and 
the Ministry of Environment and Energy. This was supplemented with direct discussions with 
individual generators. While many of the following individual initiatives were each 
documented in several of the above sources, the RCO material generally provided the nrost up- 
to-date information. 

Lever Brothers Discussions with the company revealed that 1991 packaging changes 
diverted an additional 283 tonnes from landfill over 1990's total diversion. The company has 
reduced manufacturing waste sent to landfill by 85% since 1991. The following recycling is 
taking place: 

• Pallet recycling - through CPC pallet system; 

• Boxboard - pilot programs underway in Markham and Halton; 

• Foil, Stretch Wrap, Drums. 

General Mills Cereals Group has made plastic liners for boxes 12% thinner. OCC used for 
transport and boxboard used for cereal boxes are made of 35-40% recycled material (RCO). 

May 1994 Page 02-8 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



William Neilson Ltd's Toronto plant achieved an 83% reduction in waste sent to landfill 
between 1988 and 1991. Waste was reduced from 1,740 tonnes/yr to 300 tonnes/yr. 
Corrugated waste was reduced by 90% (RCO, July/Aug. 1991). 

Confidential (food company) reduced waste sent to landfill from its Toronto plants in 
1991 by 48% over 1990. 

Random House Publishing is recycling OCC, paper, books, wood, cans, bottles and 
plastics. Randam House has reduced waste disposal by over 90%, diverting over 200 tonnes 
from landfill (RCO). • 

Hewlett Packard reduced the volume of waste sent to disposal by 80% by August '91 
(RCO). 

IBM reduced the amount of waste disposed by approximately 70% by the end of 1990 (RCO). 

McDonnell Douglas recycled over 40% of its non hazardous waste stream in 1991 (RCO, 
1991). 

LePages Ltd. achieved 40% reduction in plant waste in 1991, 3% improvement over 1990 
(RCO, 1991). 

Astra Pharma of Toronto initiated a plastics recovery program for all of the company's 
consumer plastic wastes. 95% of customers' and outlets' plastic wastes was recovered. In 
1991, an estimated 2 tonnes of material was diverted (RCO). 

GM Oshawa Autoplex achieved a 36% reduction in waste sent to landfill between 1989 and 
1991. It diverted more than 10,000 tonnes of corrugated cardboard in 1991 (MOEE, 1992). 

Boeing DeHavilland in Downsview had reduced waste generation by 49% by the end of 
1990 (RIS, 1991). In a report released March, 1993, the WRO indicated that DeHavilland 
diverted 65% of its total waste from landfill. The total amount diverted was 802 tonnes, the 
majority of which was made up of steel, aluminum, office paper and wood. The estimate of 
total waste was 1,478 tonnes. The program was started in 1988. , 

Ashland Chemicals, Mississauga reduced waste through diversion by 99%(R1S, 1991). 
C4^^HS$rui?H0n and BemoUthn Sttt^or 

Refer to Schedule H - Markets, for a description of construction and demolition waste 
processing facilities and markets. Quantities of waste divened have been included where 
available. 

tmHMpQrmitmlCommunicaUonfVtUUUs^ S^ctw^^^X- 

Information available on this sector was limited. The information obtained was provided by a 
few individual generators and was obtained through case studies and direct discussions with 
Bell Canada stafT. 

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) conducted a trial blue box program in 
December 1988 to collect newspapers. The report issued by the Commission after the 
completion of the trial indicated that in the last three weeks of the trial, 4.3 tonnes/week were 
collected. It was estimated that when the program was fully implemented, a maximum 21.77 

May 1994 [ '. '■ ~ Page 02-9 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



tonnes/week or 1,205 tonnes/year of newspapers could be diverted from landfill. This would 
create a 14% diversion rate. No updated figures have been received (TTC, 1988). 

The TTC also offers a plastic recycling program for "Metiopasses", Passes can be dropped off 
at any subway station and are recycled into plastic sewer pipes. 

Bell Canada's Zero Waste Program has reduced waste by over 98% in its Fieldway Road 
office complex which is staffed by over 1,000 employees. Materials recycled include: paper, 
copper cable, tires, plastics, cardboard and toner cartridges. Waste going to landfill has been 
reduced from 1,800 lbs/day in 1989 to 25 lbs/day in 1992. The total amount of waste diverted 
from landfill since the program's inception is 58.5 million lbs. An additional nine Bell facilities 
of over 10,000 square metres have achieved over 80% reduction. In the GTA, Bell Canada 
operates 30 facilities with 10,000 employees. 

The Bell program emphasizes the 3Rs. For example, paper towels have been replaced by hand 
dryers and stationery is deposited in a special cabinet for reuse. 

Consumer's Gas achieved a 50% reduction of waste from 1989 levels by die end of 1992. 
Its Waste Management Committee's goal now is to achieve a 75% reduction by 1995 (RIS, 
1991). 

Municipal wastes included in the Consumer's Gas program are: aluminum cans, batteries, 
OCC, Boxboard, construction waste (drywall and brick), fine paper, food waste, magazines, 
newspaper, plastic material (from pipe to foam cups), scrap metal, soft drink containers, wood 
and yard waste. A waste management manual has been developed to assist staff in all Regions 
to participate. 

Success has been achieved through the emphasis of each of the 3Rs. The company requests 
that its suppliers reuse skids and remove the blister packaging. Large office supply orders are 
packaged in boxes and returned to suppliers. Consumer's would now like to develop a zero 
waste program for its offices. 

Pearson Airport is introducing 3Rs programs in Terminals 1 and 2, as well as two service 
and administrative buildings that Transport Canada controls. Phase 1 was scheduled to be 
introduced in April or May, 1993 and included fibres such as office paper, newspapers and 
magazines. Phase 2 includes beverage containers such as bottles, cans and perhaps 
polystyrene, and was scheduled to be introduced in late summer, 1993. RIS has designed the 
program and estimates that 610 tonnes per year could be diverted from landfill. This total 
includes cardboard which is already collected for recycling (RJS, 1991). 

The airports flight kitchens are controlled by Cara, Marriot and Steels Aviation. All now 
recycle cardboimd. Cara now has a 34% waste diversion rate. It plans to add steel cans, glass 
and food waste to the program. Steels Aviation currently recycles these materials with the 
exception of food waste, and has achieved a 42% diversion rate (WRO, 1993). 

WhaUsaU Stcior . - ' 

Packaging is the major source of waste generated by this sector. A strong emphasis is placed 
on reduction and reuse. The industry is a major participant in the National Packaging Protocol 
(NAPP), one of the highest profile waste reduction and reuse initiatives in the commercial 
sector. Recent published reports have indicated that 55% of industrial packaging waste 
consists of pallets. While exact figures are not known, the majority of pallets are diverted from 
landfill (Confidential source). NAPP indicated tiiat it was on course for its 20% reduction goal 
for the end of '92 (Confidential source). 

May 1994 ~ Page 02-10 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Xetati Seeter '"■ 

Direct discussions were held with a number industry associations. The findings were as 
follows: 

Building Owners and Managers Association 

The association has many mall operators as members. 

Retail Council of Canada 

The council commissioned RIS to do a general assessment of packaging issues and priorities. 
No survey of the membership was done and it did not focus on recycling. Due to the difficult 
economic time faced by the retail industry over the last few years, recommendations have not 
yet been implemented. 

Toronto Automobile Dealers Association 

The association provides information to dealers regarding new environmental regulations. The 
dealers then undertake appropriate initiatives with haulers. 

Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers 

The federation endorses all initiatives being developed by the Grocery Products Manufacturers 
of Canada. It is not undertaking actions of its own. 

Grocery Products Manitfacturers of Canada 

The GPMC (Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada) which represents 165 manufacturers 
and sellers of grocery products, proposed a Packaging Stewardship Model in November 1992. 
This model is a Canada- wide industry based initiative aimed at taking responsibility for the 
packaging generated by a number of consumer products. It calls for the creation of an industry 
funded organization to suppon municipalities in their recycling efforts and to develop maricets 
for recycloJ materials. The details of this plan have not been released to date. 

Information Obtained on Individual Generators 

The following information was obtained from published reports from the RCO, LURA Studies 
and Waste Reduction Office, and describes efforts by individual retail companies. 

Trilea Centres has implemented recycling programs at two of its malls, the Bramalea City 
Centre and "Shops on Stceles" Mall. The Bramalea City Centre distributed blue boxes to all 
tenants for the collection of cans, glass and fine paper and the program diverted 23 tonnes in 
the first eight days. No figures were provided for Shops on Steeles (RCO, Sept., 1992). 

The Body Shop is offering a bottie refill program for liquid products. Customers bring 
empty bottles to be refilled with the same product and will be given a discount. The chain is 
now looking at Uie feasibility of switching products from tubes to bottles. It is also collecting 
other used containers for recycling (RCO, June, 1992). 

Sears Canada launched a program to recycle 35 million expired catalogues (LURA Group, 
1992). 

May 1994 " Page 02-U 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



The Bayview Village Shopping Centre has begun a recycling program with AAA 
Recycling to collect OCC, fine paper, cans, glass bottles, newspaper, plastic, styrofoam, wood 
and food waste. No diversion figures have been provided (RCO). 

The DufTerin Mall has implemented a Blue Box program collecting standard materials, 
including food waste, fine paper, polystyrene, clothing, coat hangers, eye glasses and silicone 
boxes. Its next step will be to target tissue paper, plastic gamient bags and box board. 

The Duffcrin Mall generated 520 tonnes waste in 1991-1992. CM" this, 83 tonnes were reused 
or recycled in 1992. A stated waste management goal is to increase the total to 200 tonnes. In 
1992, 4,500 lbs of food waste were sent to Scott's Farms for composting (RCO). 

Canadian Tire has implemented an extensive 3Rs program. Details were not available at the 
time of preparing this document (May, 1994). 

FimtHt0fimumnce^4at EiUttt Seem 

This group covers many office buildings in the GTA. Pitney-Bowes conducted a survey of its 
customers in 1992 which showed that 72% of offices in Ontario have recycling programs, 
compared to only 58% in 1991 and 60% nationally. The survey results are summarized in 
Table 0-2.4. 



Table 0-2.4 
Key Findings of the 1992 Pitney Bowes Survey 





?:EimXtnim 


mi m 


Two-sided photocopying 


55 


61 


Revise Documents on computers 


41 


46 


Buy in bulk 


S3 


• . 55 


Recycle soft drink cans 


m 


72 


Recycle cardboard boxes 


;|4. 


54 


Recycle newspapers 


;S§, " 


68 


Recycle toner cartridges 






Copier /fax 


11 


28 


Laser printer 


IS 


32 



The survey is based on 706 responses from a random sample of 135,000 customers and is 
considered to be accurate to ± 6.0%, 19 times out of 20. 

Information Obtained about Industry Associations 

Information is hmited at the association level. 

The Toronto Real Estate Board began recycling weekly listing books in September 1991. 
and recycled 9(X) tonnes in 1992. It is estimated that 60% of their paper is going back into the 
recycling process. Nine hundred of approximately 1,400 offices panicipate. (Henrickson, 
1993). 

Information on Individual Generators 

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), in conjunction with Inter City 
Papers, initiated a paper recycling program. The bank is now recycling copier and laser printer 



May 1994 



Page 02-12 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



paper for reuse. 40,000 lbs. has been collected from CIBC to the end of 1991. It has 
expanded the program to collect a wider variety of stationery. The program won the RCO 
1991 Outstanding Market Development Award (MOEE, WRO, 1993). 

Olympia & York (First Canadian Place) has reduced waste sent to landfill by 83%. 
Paper, food waste, wooden pallets, glass, aluminum and steel containers and construction 
materials from renovations are recycled. At the end of 1991 the amount of waste sent to 
landfill was rwiuced from 40 to 7 tonnes per day through 3Rs programs. The office complex 
houses 15,000 employees and it is estimated that 30,000 people pass through the mall each day 
(MOEE, WRO, 1993). 

Scotia Plaza has just implemented a recycling program. Diversion rates are not yet known. 

This group includes all health care and educational facilities. Each will be discussed separately. 
Ht^Offi Cart Sector ^ 

Information Obtained on Industry Associations 

Information was obtained through telephone conversations and attending the Health Care 
Environmental Network's March 1993 meeting. 

Health Care Environmeniai Network 

The network consists of 125 members, two thirds to three quarters of which are located in the 
GTA. Membership is made up of: 

Hospitals; 

Nursing Homes; 

Medical offices; 

Ontario Dental Association; 

(Canadian Veterinary Association; 

Consultants; 

Haulers; 

Suppliers. 

Ail have implemented 3Rs programs internally. The network assists members by providing 
information on setting up programs. 

Each of the 42 hospitals operating in the GTA is a member. The network was to conduct 
elaborate surveys in the fall of 1993 concerning existing waste generation and recycling 
systems. 

Circle Consulting (a member) indicated that 40% of nursing homes and 35% of hospitals are 
recycling food waste. (The reliability of these figures is considered questionable by the Study 
Team.) . 

Hospitals with recycling programs have achieved 30-35% reductions in waste sent to landfill. 



May 1994 Page 02-13 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Ontario Ho^ital Association 

The association indicated that all 42 hospitals in the GTA are recycling. It performed a survey 
in 1991, but many hospitals did not keep records of quantities diverted from landfill. A new 
committee has been formed to address environmental issues. 

J rtformation on Individual Generators 

Sunnybrook Hospital 

The hospital has developed one of the most elaborate 3Rs program in the hospital sector. It is 
currently diverting the following annual tonnages from landfill: 



• Diapers 


52 tonnes 


• Paper 


240 tonnes 


• Plastic 


6 tonnes 


• Glass 


3 tonnes 


• Cans 


10 tonnes 


• Cardboard 


126 tonnes 



• Total 437 tonnes 

This represents a 33% overall annual diversion rate. 

In addition, the facility has proposed recycling for sanipacks (395 tonnes/yr) and food (156 
tonnes/yr). (Martin, Sunnybrook Hospital, 1993) 

Toronto East General . . . ' 

This hospital has also developed an elaborate program which has achieved the following 
results: . , 

• 291 .6 tonnes were diverted from landfill in 1992 - a 32% diversion rate; 

• 54 tonnes (annual generation) of diapers & incontinence pads arc to be added to the 
program this year (Tulk, 1993). 

Mississauga Hospital 

The hospital is recycling 43% of its total waste (WRO, 1993). 

Ottawa General Hospital 

Ortech produced a study of the Ottawa General Hospital in April 1992. It quoted the findings 
of other studies showing 95% of hospital waste is non-hazardous, non- biomedical solid waste 
(municipal waste). The audit found 77% Of the waste disposed to be made up of food, paper 
and plastic. The top 5 specific wastes were: 

Food and Food Liquid (22%) 

OCC and Kraft (14%) 

Wet Paper and Gauze (8%) 

Medical Plastic (8%) 

Fine Paper and CPO (7.5%) 



May 1994 Page 02-14 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Ortech concluded that over 50% of the municipal waste component can be reduced, reused or 
recycled if the major waste types are targeted and large scale composting of food waste can be 
implemented. 

WHucQtion Sector '^^^^^^tt 

Waste reduction initiatives are being undertaken at many educational facilities. Information 
collected to date is summarized below. 

University of Toronto 

The university is implementing an extensive program. It encompasses operations that arc part 
of the main university but does not include affiliated campuses. In the 1991-92 school year, a 
14% diversion rate was achieved. The goal for the '92-93 year was 45%, and 51% for '93-94. 
These increased totals will be achieved by expanding the program and increasing promotion 
with students (Nower, 1993). 

North York Board of Education 

The board implemented extensive 3Rs program. (Niven, 1993). 

Norway Public School 

A program to reduce lunchroom waste has achieved 50% reductions. Numerous school boards 
are interested in pursuing the program (RCO, April/May, 1992). 

Ryerson Potytechnical Institute 

The school has implemented the collection of paper, bottles, OCC and cans for recycling 
(RCO). 

Commercial Servicer Sector 



The Canadian Restaurant and Food Services AssociationlQuick Service Restaurant Council 
(QSRC) 

QSRC includes fast food companies such as MacDonalds, Tim Horton Donuts, Pizza Hut, etc. 
RIS was commissioned to prepare a national waste minimization study which was completed in 
May, 1992. Waste audits conducted for the study indicated that: 

• total waste generated by QSRC members amounts to 1 47,000 tonnes, equivalent to 
0.5% of waste generated in Canada annually; 

• Ontario establishments account for 7 1 ,100 tonnes, or 48% of the national QSRC 
total; 

• the largest component of the waste stream consists of food wastes which comprise 
39%; 

• paper fibre material represents the second largest component at 37% of total; 

• plastics comprise 9% of total waste stream; 

• take-out meal packaging represents 17% of total solid wastes generated, 88% of 
which consists of paper fibre packaging in the form of bags, boxboard containers, 
wraps, napkins and cups. Only 12% of this waste stream consists of plastic 
packaging. 



May 1994 . Page 02-15 



Mimstry ofEnvirormettt and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technic<d Appendix 



The survey indicated that while there are waste reduction opportunities from packaging 
reductions, the greatest opportunity for diversion lies in addressing the organic portion of the 
waste. 

Recent discussions with the QSRC have indicated that no industry initiatives have been 
undertaken since the study was completed and that, because of the diversity of members, 
initiatives are more likely to be undertaken on an individual basis in the future. Two such 
initiatives are individual pilot composting projects initiated by Tim Horton Donuts and 
MacDonalds (see details below). 

Additional information was gathered from other commercial services associations, 

Onsario Restaurant Association 

There are approximately 4,000 restaurants in the City of Toronto, and 7,000 in all of Metro: 
The association has about 1300 GTA members which makes up 50% of the total membership. 
The total includes chains, each chain counting as only one member. Therefore, the actual 
number of establishments represented by the association is greater than 1300 (Wrigley, 1993). 

In 1991, City of Toronto began requiring all restaurants to participate in recycling programs. 
Materials included were glass, cans, plastics and OCC. The City's restaurants receive 
municipal pick-up, while in the other municipalities they rely on private haulers. 

The association does not collect figures on recycled materials, and will not be undertaking any 
new initiatives as an industry. Like the QSRC, they indicated that significant diversion cannot 
take place until wider-scale composting is intnxiuced. 

Ontario Hotel and Motel Association 

Discussions with the association indicated that no surveys or other initiatives have been 
undertaken with respect to waste matters (Stefanik, 1993). 

Canadian Printing Industries Association 

The association has 200 members and represents 10% of the industry in the GTA. Large 
companies such as Southam and MacLean Hunter make up the membership. The primary 
component of members' major solid waste stream is fine paper. The association keeps no 
records as to quantities. Most material is recycled, however, but this is not new diversion 
(Dcnholm, 1993). 

Numerous other initiatives have been undertaken by individual generators as detailed below. 

The Royal York Hotel reduced daily generated waste for disposal from a previous 12.13 
tonnes to 5.44 tonnes in 1990, a 49% reduction. 

The hotel diverted 66 tonnes of cardboard, 42 tonnes of newspaper, 307 tonnes of glass and 
1 1 tonnes of cans through recycling. It encourages staff to take plastic pails that would 
otherwise be sent to landfill and has some suppliers collecting food pails for re-use. All food 
waste is sent to a company producing swill for hogs or to Second Harvest . 

MacDonalds The chain has implemented a behind-the-counter program for diversion of food, 
paper, plastic film and cardboard. Food is sent to pig farmers, paper was going to Scott's 
Farms, plastic film to Reliable Recycling and cardboard to a variety of handlers. Total waste 

May 1994 Page 02-16 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



diversion is estimated to be between 50 and 60% but has not yet been confinned (Confidential 
source). 

Tim Horton's has introduced a behind the counter program at thirty of its stores to collect 
organics, gjass and cardboard. The number of stores in the GTA participating in the project is 
not known (Confidential source). 

Pizza Hut is starting the same program as Tim Horton's. Both are being administered by 
Phillip Environmental. Food waste from both Phillip's projects is sent to Grow Rich for 
composting ((ilonfidcntial source). 

Kelsey's Restaurants achieved a 65% reduction in waste through reduction and recycling 
measures (RCO, De., 1990). 

Country Style Donuts reduced cardboard in boxes by 25%. The chain is also replacing 
corrugated cases for juice boxes with a cardboard tray with overwrap and has reduced plastics 
in polystyrene sandwich and salad containers by 30% (RCO). 

The Ramada Renaissance Hotel at the end of 1991 was recycling 50-60% of its wastes 
(RCO). 

The Marriot Eaton Centre Hotel is recycling over 114 tonnes of paper and 1 tonne of 
plastic per year in its recycling program (RCO), 

Westin Hotels at its Harbour Castle facility achieved a 50% reduction in solid waste. This 
includes a 60% reduction in kitchen wastes. In 1992, the hotel sent 244 tonnes of food waste 
to farmers and recycled 65 tonnes of glass botties, 47 tonnes of OCC and 47 tonnes of fine and 
nuxed paper (rooms not included in program). The program encourages reduction and reuse as 
weU as recycling (MOEE, WRO, 1993). 

^uh^ AdminUtmii^n Sector. ^ 

This sector includes all government offices. The previous discussion on office recycling 
applies to this sector as well. Most initiatives arc undertaken at individual government 
organization levels. 

Ministry of Government Services 

This provincial government ministry coordinates the recycling programs for all Government of 
Ontario offices. It is the largest recycling program in North America, and in the GTA 
encompasses 200-300 facilities and approximately 45,000 people. Material recycled is 
comprised of: 

• 75% paper, 

• 3% cans and botties; 

• 10% wet wastes; 

• remainder in polystyrene, wood waste, etc. (Sparling, 1993) 

Liquor Control Board of Ontario The LCBO has instituted a large scale recycling 
program in its offices and stores (Lewin, 1993). Materials included are: 

• Paper, 

• Newspaper; 

• Cardboaid; 

May 1994 ' ~ ] Page 02-17 



Miiuslry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis ~ Service Technical Appendix 



• Bottles & Cans; . . 

• Polystyrene; 

• Other material. 

Brewers Retail 

This govemnient agency has also implemented a 3Rs program. 

Governments Incorporating Procurement Policies to Eliminate Refuse (GIPPER) 

This is a large scale multi- government initiative that involves offices and agencies of offices at 
all three levels of government in Toronto. It was initiated by the Toronto Department of Public 
Works to coordinate government procurement policies among different offices of different 
levels of government and promote the 3Rs in general. The committee now includes Metro 
Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission, Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Association of School 
Business Officials, provincial government departments, Supply and Services and Environment 
Canada. 

No figures are kept by the organization as to reduction and recycling among the different 
members (Pagano, 1993). 

References 

Associations 

Davis, B., Government Relations Officer, Toronto Auto Dealers Association. Personal 
communication. March, 1993 

Denholm, V., Canadian Printing Industries Association. March, 1993. Personal 
communicadon 

Dworkin, L., Packaging Association of Canada. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Entine, S., Society of Plastic Industry (SPI). Personal communication. March, 1993 

Garett, R., Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association. March, 1993. Personal 
communication 

Henrickson, G., Toronto Real Estate Board. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Kuzik, C, National Apparel Bureau/Dress Guild. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Mallot, T., Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). Personal communication. 
March, 1993 

Martin, J., Canadian Flexible Packaging Institute. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Mullinder, J., Exec. Dir. Environmental Committee, Paper and Paperboard Packaging 
Environmental Council (PPEC). Personal communication. March, 1993 

Olson, D., Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. March, 1993. Personal 
communication 

May 1994 Page 02-18 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Append 



Pinlay, G., Ontario Hospital Association. Personal communication. March, 1993 

Shiramatsu, P., Ontario Furniture Manufacturers Association. March, 1993. Personal 
communicaticMi 

Stefanik, D., Exec. Dir., Ontario Hotel and Motel Association. March, 1993. Personal 
communication 

Stradling, C, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). Personal communication. 
March, 1993 

Tulk, D, Chairperson, Health Care Environmental Network. March, 1993. Personal 
communication 

Ulba, C, Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association. March, 1993. Personal 
ccHnmunication 

Wiersma, D., Canadian Manufacturers Association. Personal communication. March, 1993 
Wrigley, C, Ontario Restaurant Association. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Municipalities/Regioncd Offices 

CoUis, E., Recycling Coordinator, Region of Durham. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Davidson, A., Region of York. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Garland, K., IC&l Recyclir.g Coordinator, Metro Toronto. Personal communication, March, 
1993 

Morgan-Raser, L., Region of Peel. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Smith, C, Recycling Coordinator, Region of Halton. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Vardin, N. City of Toronto, Comments Received on November 1993 Draft GTA 3Rs 
Analysis, 1994. 

IC&I Generators 

Ansons, C, Royal York Hotel. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Basdeo, M., Kraft General Foods. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Berent, M., Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO). Personal communication. March, 1993 

Grand, B., Building Manager, First Canadian Place, Olympia and York. Personal 
communication, March, 1993 , 

Hanley, M., Onech - Ontario Waste Exchange. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Heaton,J., Second Harvest March, 1993. Personal communication 

Lewin, J., LCBO. Personal communication. March, 1993 

May 1994 Page 02-19 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Loblaws Ltd. Information provided by Hardy Stevenson and Associates, April, 1993 

Lurie, E, Pitney Bowes. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Martin, M., Recycling Coordinator, Sunnybrook Hospital. Personal communication. March, 
1993 

McVitty, C, Lever Bros. Personal communicaticm. March, 1993 

Niven, D., North York Boani of Education, Personal communication. March, 1993. 

Nower, G., Environmental Manager, University of Toronto. Personal communication. March, 
1993 

Pagano, L., Chairperson, GIPPER. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Powers, M., Circle Consulting. Personal communication. March, 1993 

Scotia Plaza. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Sparling, D., Ministry of Government Services. March, 1993. Personal communication 

Stewart, F., P. Morich, Quaker Oats. Personal communication. March, 1993 

Tolonki, R., Recycling Coordinator, Bell Canada. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Tryl, v., Spec.Engineer, GiPPER. Personal communication, March, 1993 

Webster, B., William Neilson Ltd. Personal communication. March, 1993 

Literature Sources " - , • . 

Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators (AMRC), Survey Responses, provided by 
MOEE, March, 1993 

Canadian Federation of Independent Business, T/ie Green Grassroots: Small Business and the 
Environment, Aug., 1991 

City of Toronto Public Works Dept. Information from report, April, 1992. 

Health Care Network Newsletter, Issues from April, 1991 through November, 1992 

LURA Group, Waste Reduction in the Education Sector Summary Report. Feb., 1992 

LURA Group, Waste Reduction in the Food and Hotel Services Sector Summary Report. 
Feb., 1992 

LURA Group, Waste Reduction in the Manufacturing Sector Summary Report. Feb., 1992 

LURA Group, Waste Reduction in the Retail and Office Sector Summary Report. Feb., 1992 

LURA Group, Waste Reduction in the Retail and Office Sector Summary Report. Feb., 1992 

May 1994 Page 02-20 



Ministry cf Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



MacLaren Engineers, Waste Diversion Monitoring Report, prepared for the Ministry of 
Environment, 1991. 

Metro Works Dept., Information provided by Metro Works to the Waste Reduction Office, 
January, 1993. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), Case Studies provided by the Waste Reduction 
Office, March, 1993. 

Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), Waste Reduction Office (WRO), 1992 Status 
Report.Waste Reduction, Re-Use and Recycling in 
the Greater Toronto Area. 1992 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Meeting the Challenge; Reduction, Reuse and Recycling 
Activities in the GTA, 1992. 

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO), Ontario Recycling Update., Issues: December, 1992, 
Oct./Nov., 1992, Sept., 1992, July/Aug., 1992, June, 1992, April/May, 1992, 
Jan./Feb., 1992, Dec., 1991, Sept., 1991, July/Aug., 1991, June, 1991, Nov ./Dec, 
1991 

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO), IC&l Contact and Success Stories File. 

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO), IC&I Corporate Recycling Initiatives File. 

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO), 1991 Outstanding Market Development Award. 

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO), 1991 Outstanding 3Rs Industrial Initiative Award. 

Resource Integrated Systems (RIS), Characterization of IC&l Recycling in Ontario, February, 
1991. 



May 1994 Page 02-21 



' Ministry of Environment and Energy 

GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Teckmcal Appen£x 



SCHEDULE 0-3 — MANDATORY IC&I RECYCLING ORDINANCES 

Increasingly, government agencies arc recognizing the advantages gained in targeting the 
IC&I sector to participate in waste minimization programs and activities. Several approaches 
have been taken in the past to encourage greater waste diversion activity within Uie IC&I 
sector. These approaches include: material bans at landfills, tipping fees that reflect the truer 
costs of waste management, legislation prohibiting unprocessed waste in landfills and 
mandatory recycling ordinances. 

Since the 1990's, more and more government agencies, particularly at the state or provincial 
level, are enacting mandatory IC&I recycling ordinances coupled with mandatory waste 
audits and waste reduction planning. This measure ensures that company personnel take 
direct responsibility for their wastes and become knowledgeable about their waste generating 
habits. TTie impetus is provided for companies to further reduce their waste management and 
diversion costs by implementing source reduction and reuse programs. 

Throughout North America, a number of jurisdictions have enacted mandatory recycling 
ordinances targeting the IC&I sector, including the following: 

The State of Rhode Island 

The promulgation of regulations for Reduction and Recycling of Commercial and Non- 
Mimicipal Residential Solid Waste in 1988 permits the state government to require waste 
audits, waste reduction plans and source separation of recyclable materials from designated 
IC&I groups (manufacturing/industrial, hotel/restaurant, office, retail/wholesale, health care, 
college/university, and city/town). The regulations stipulate that the following materials will 
be recycled: corrugated cardboard, mixed office paper, newsprint, wood waste, aluminum, 
glass food and beverage containers, steel and tinned steel containers, PET and HDPE 
containers, used lubricating oil, vehicle batteries, white goods, automobiles, telephone 
directories, laser toner cartridges, coated unbleached kraft beverage carriers, and leaf and 
yard waste. The implementation dates are staggered according to the size of the company 
(Brown University Centre for Environmental Studies, 1992). 

Personal communications with John Callan at DEM (1993) suggest that, in fact, the program 
has prompted companies to look beyond the mandatory materials and develop more 
comprehensive waste reduction programs. John cautions that much of the additional activity 
has been highly dependent on available markets for the materials. As markets become 
saturated with materials and prices plummet, John feels that companies will stop recycling 
those materials. 

The Province of Ontario 

Borrowing from Rhode Island's legislation, the Province of Ontario recently promulgated die 
3Rs Regulations in Mareh 1994 requiring specific IC&I groups (retail shopping, construction 
and demolition, offices, food services, hotels and motels, hospitals, schools, and 
manufacturing) to conduct waste audits, develop waste reduction plans, and source separate 
designated materials from the waste stream. The list of recyclable materials is not as 
exhaustive as the list prepared by the State of Rhode Island; however, Ontario's list reflects 
the rapid level of change occurring in the recycling industry. Apart from the commonly 
targeted materials (corrugated cardboard, fine paper, aluminum and steel beverage 
containers, newsprint, glass containers, PET containers, wood, steel, brick and cement 
concrete, and diywall), the Ontario Government also included materials (polystyrene 
expanded foam, polystyrene trays, reels and spools, polyethylene -linear low density and low 
density- film, and polyethylene -high density- jugs, pails, crates, totes, and drums) for which 

May 1994 ~ PageOTT 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



recycling markets only recently have become securely established (The Ontario Gazette, 
1994). 

TheStateof New Jersey 

New Jersey Law 1987-102, titled Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act , requires 
all citizens of the state to participate in recycling programs for designated recyclable 
materials (State of New Jersey, 1987). The onus has been placed on the individual counties 
and municipalities to inaplement the law at the local level and to oversee the implementation 
of the source separation programs by the IC&I sector. In support of the recycling ordinance, 
the State of New Jersey has also enacted legislation requiring provision for separation, 
collection, and storage of recyclables in proposed commercial developments utilizing 1,000 
square feet or more of land (Sarafides, 1993). 

The State of Maine 

As part of its Solid Waste Disposal Laws (1989), the State of Maine requires all businesses, 
state government offices, and universities within the State to source separate, at a minimum, 
office paper (ledger, computer and bond paper) and corrugated cardboard (OCC). Unlike 
other jurisdictions, the State of Maine has targeted businesses as small as 15 employees to 
participate in the recycling ordinance. The State Government estimates that office paper and 
(X!C contributes 38% to the total waste stream. Under the legislation, any person subject to 
the source separation requirements may use the office paper or OCC as fuel for the 
generation of heat, steam or electricity if no secure recycling market is available (State of 
Maine, 1989; Breggs, 1993). 

New York State . - 

Local governments, such as New York City and Oswego County in New York State, have 
begun to introduce legislation requiring local businesses to source separate materials for 
recycling purposes. New York City's Local Law 19 mandates that commercial 
establishments recycle high grade office paper, corrugated cardboard, metal products, 
construction waste, newspapers, magazines, catalogues, glass containers, plastic containers, 
and plastic film (Cacandes, 1993). For the most part, Oswego County's legislation requires 
that businesses recycle similar materials (Lichenstein, 1993). 

Pennsylvania State 

A comprehensive regulatory package for residual waste was put in place in Pennsylvania in 
July 1992. Much of the package is devoted to strictly regulating and monitoring residual 
waste disposal and processing facilities. The most striking provision in the regulation is the 
requirement that all industries generating a metric ton or more of waste per month must 
develop a source reduction strategy. Industries are required to examine their waste streams, 
including the hazardous portion, and set an overall source reduction goal. They must also 
describe what source reduction programs have already been put in place and describe what 
programs they will put in place to reach their goals, and track reduction estimates. There are 
no state imposed goals to be met (Glenn, 1993). 

Although the source reduction strategy does not need to be approved by the Department of 
Environmental Resources (DER), there are several checks along the way. First, all targeted 
industries were required to have a strategy fully in place by July 1993. After that date, 
industries were required to have the strategy on file at the plant, and available for inspection. 
Additionally, permits for the processing or disposal of an industry's residual waste will not be 
issued without a DER review of the plan. ^s 

May 1994 Page 03-2 



Monmouth County, New Jersey 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Monmouth County implemented a mandatory recycling program which includes the 
residential, commercial, and construction and demolition debris streams. Penalties are in 
place, and an enforcement team is available to discourage the disposal of recyclables at the 
landfill. Mandatory separation of recyclables for the commercial sector began in 1988 and 
includes newspaper, glass containers, aluminum cans, high-grade paper and corrugated paper. 
Mandatory materials for the demolition sector include asphalt, concrete, and certain wood 
wastes (pallets, clean lumber, stumps). 

Dane County, Wisconsin 

In 1991, Dane County banned recyclables from its landfill and implemented mandatory 
curbside and drop-off recycling programs. The Public Works Department commissioned a 
study to find out whether or not the mandatory recycling programs were effective. Waste 
composition analysis for both the residential and commercial sectors were conducted before 
and after the implenvcntation of the mandatory recycling ordinance. 

The results of the before and after composition analysis found a drop in the proponion of 
materials included in the landfill ban. The most dramatic drop was in the fibre stream - the 
waste composition for corrugated cardboard in the commercial sector dropped from 20.5% to 
4.3%. Recycling collectors and processors reported receiving almost 24% more material 
since the landfill bans and mandatory recycling programs (Collins, 1992). 

Other 

Throughout Canada, provincial governments have written legislation (such as British 
Columbia) or are in the process of developing legislation (such as Saskatchewan and Quebec) 
enabling them to introduce regulations, at a future date, that will mandate waste audits, waste 
reduction plans, or mandatory source separation programs. Prince Edward Island has enacted 
legislation that will prohibit any unprocessed waste from entering landfills within the 
province. This legislation has the effect of requiring the IC«S:1 sector to recycle materials on- 
site through source separation programs or off-site through mixed waste processing 
operations. 

Impacts of Mandatory Recycling Ordinances 

To date, there has been very little information published on the success of IC&I recycling 
ordinances. A study, completed in 1992 by Brown University Centre for Environmental 
Studies (1992), evaluated the effect of the mandatory commercial recycling program on 
targeted companies in Rhode Island. Of those companies participating in the study (448 in 
total), an overall diversion rate of 34% was achieved through the implementation of recycling 
programs. Furthermore, once the participating companies began collecting information about 
their waste generating habits and began initiating source separation programs, there was 
greater incentive to introduce source reduction activities, including double-sided 
photocopying, reuse of shipping/packaging materials, and substitution of reusable items for 
disposable ones. In addition, 74% of the companies also reported to have accmed savings in 
avoided landfill costs while 37% reported to+ave generated revenue from die sales of 
recyclable materials. 

Similar results have been rcponed by Oswego County, which attributes 75% of its 50% waste 
diversion figures to the mandatory IC&I recycling ordinance (the waste diversion figures also 
take into consideration the effects of the recession and waste expons) (Lichenstein, 1993). 

May 1994 ~~~ " ' P^g^oTJ 



Ministry of Environment and Energy 
GTA 3Rs Analysis - Service Technical Appendix 



Not all jurisdictions report successful implementation of the recycling ordinances. For 
example, New Jersey communities report a reluctance of the waste hauling industry to collect 
and process recyclables because it reduces revenues collected from hauling waste. 
Furthermore, the overwhelming supply of recyclable materials in the market has been 
accompanied by a drop in the quality of recyclables collected from businesses. Market forces 
are expected to correct this problem in the near future (Duncan, 1990). 

References 

Anderson, Peter et. al. 1993. A New Way to Measure Recycling Effectiveness. Resource 
Recycling, April 1993 

Brown University Center for Environmental Studies. 1992. Mandatory Commercial Solid 
Waste Recycling: Rhode Island Case Study, September 1992 

City of Maine. 1989. Excerpts from Solid Waste Disposal Laws. 

Collins, Robert J. 1992. Mandatory Recycling - Five Years Later. MSW Ma